Preamble

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

TRANSPORT BILL

2ND ALLOTTED DAY

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Gallery is empty. Have any arrangements been made for tickets to be issued, or is it merely that the public are not interested in this Bill?

Mr. Speaker: On other morning sittings, strangers have been in the Gallery. I should think that it is probably because it is rather early.

Clause 62

CONDITIONS AT TO MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE NOTIFIED TO LICENSING AUTHORITY

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Bessell: No. 236, in page 86, line 26, at end insert:
'unless such change of shareholding takes place in the course of the normal trading of shares in a public company'.

Mr. Peter Bessell: As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, we are working to a very tight timetable, and, in the interests of making progress to important Amendments, I do not propose to move this Amendment.

Clause 63

DURATION OF OPERATORS' LICENCES AND GRANT OF INTERIM LICENCES

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I beg to move Amendment No. 237, in page 87, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'pending' in line 26 and insert:
(5) If an applicant for an operator's licence so requests, a licensing authority may, if the applicant does not hold an operator's licence granted by that authority, grant to him.
The Amendment extends a discretion of the licensing authority under Clause 63(5) to grant an interim operator's licence to an applicant to cover the case

in which the applicant already has a licence in one traffic area but must apply for a new one to the authority for a different area, for instance, because he has removed his operating centre into that area or has opened a new centre there. The Bill at the moment allows discretion to make an interim grant only where an applicant does not have an operator's licence, that is, he is a com plete newcomer. It would be unfair not to allow the same privilege to an operator already established in another area. The licensing authority may feel, indeed, more confident in making such a grant to an applicant who had already proved himself reasonable and competent. No further changes are proposed.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We accept this further move towards flexibility in this Part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 64

VARIATION OF OPERATORS' LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 238, in page 88,leave out lines 6 to 9.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 65

REVOCATION, SUSPENSION AND CURTAILMENT OF OPERATORS' LICENCES

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 239, in page 89, line 19, at end insert:
Provided that the licensing authority shall not revoke, suspend or curtail an operator's licence by reason of a conviction or prohibition contained in subsection 4(a), (f) and (g) unless he is satisfied that the record of the operator during the said period of five years constitutes a material danger to the public.
This Clause which deals with revocation of operators' licences, is another which was never reached for discussion in Standing Committee. We agree with the Government that it is necessary to improve the standard of maintenance of vehicles. We believe that although the road haulage industry generally maintains its vehicles properly, there are some black sheep, and some of the figures given by the Minister last night do give cause for concern. We therefore support the Government's measures to strengthen enforcement of this branch of the law.
But some of the penalties in Clause 65 go a little too far. The Clause pro-


vides that licences can be revoked if, at any time in a period of five years, which is a long time, an operator has been convicted of any of a number of offences, which are spelt out in subsection (4), in eight paragraphs. Paragraph (a) relates to convictions for maintenance, speed limits and licensing of drivers. Paragraph (b) concerns offences dealing with operators' licences. Paragraph (c) deals with offences relating to drivers' hours, paragraph (d) with offences under the Road Haulage Wages Act, 1938, for failure to pay drivers a proper remuneration, paragraph (e) with offences under the Customs and Excise Act of 1952 relating to unlawful use of rebated fuel, paragraph (f) with failure to keep proper inspection records for goods vehicles. Paragraph (g) deals with offences relating to the contravention of provisions restricting the waiting of vehicles and paragraph (h) with offences for using a vehicle on which a prohibition notice has been imposed. If, at any time in a period of five years before the revocation, an operator is convicted of any one of those offences, he can lose his licence.
Under the existing law, the 1960 Road Traffic Act, there is some limitation on power to revoke licences. Section 178(4) says:
The licensing authority shall not give a direction under this section on a ground such as is referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) thereof unless he is satisfied that owing to the frequency of such convictions or prohibitions as are referred to in that paragraph, or the wilfulness of the act or omission leading to the conviction or prohibition in question, or the danger to the public involved in that act or omission, such a direction should be given.
The offences referred to are set out in the 14th Schedule and relate to the maintenance of vehicles, limits of speed and weight of vehicles, drivers' hours and the keeping of records as to hours of work, journeys and other matters. So there is some limitation under the existing law. Unless some wilful act or some element of danger to the public can be shown, a licence cannot be revoked.
We believe that there should also be some limitation in this Bill. We are not dealing in this Amendment with every paragraph of subsection (4), since we realise that some of those offences are extremely serious and should carry automatic revocation—

Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Gentleman refers to automatic revocation, but if any action is proposed there must be a public hearing and there will be a right of appeal. There is great protection as well as what he is describing.

Mr. Awdry: Of course, it is within the discretion of the licensing authority, but it has the power, if, at any time in the previous five years, any of these offences is proved, to take away an operator's licence and to disqualify him permanently from holding one in future. That is a considerable power, and we should like it to be more selective.
We have chosen the less serious offences, namely, those contained in paragraphs (a), relating to maintenance, speed limits and licensing, (f), relating to failure to keep records of inspection, and (g), relating to unlawful waiting by vehicles. Of course, these can be serious and there may be cases in which it would be right that they carried revocation of a licence. But there may be some less serious cases in which no danger can be shown to have been caused to the public, and in these cases it would be wrong for a man to lose his livelihood. We therefore say that the licensing authority should not be able to revoke a licence under these three paragraphs unless it is satisfied that the record of the operator taken over a period of five years constitutes a material danger to the public. If it can be shown to a licensing authority that an operator is a danger to the public, then it may well be right that the operator should lose his licence. This is a strong power because the man will also lose his livelihood.
As I said at the outset, we have tabled the Amendment in a responsible way because we support the Government in the steps they are taking to strengthen the law dealing with operators who fail to maintain their vehicles. Having said that, we believe that the law would be slightly better if it could be shown to be really fair, and we consider that the penalties as provided are somewhat too stiff.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) say that he is in favour of strengthening the law in this


respect to achieve a higher standard of road safety and of a system of quality licensing to raise the standards of the maintenance of vehicles and the administration of the system. We are now discussing the effectiveness of enforcing the law in these respects and the effectiveness of the penalties.
For a long time we have had a licensing system within which licensing authorities have had the power to revoke, suspend or curtail licences for offences committed by the holders of carriers licences. The terms of the Clause appear in their present form precisely because of the contrast over the years between the number of offences which appear to have been committed—my right hon. Friend gave some figures to the House last night— and the number of occasions on which licensing authorities have used their power to revoke, suspend or curtail licences.
Hon. Members will be aware of the results of the roadside spot checks which the Minister of Transport has been conducting on vehicles. They will also be aware of the deplorable results that have sometimes hit the public between the eyes. These checks have shown up many defects. While many have been of a minor nature, we should never forget that between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the vehicles checked showed defects of one kind or another.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro) rose—

Mr. Swingler: It is important that the point I am making is fully realised. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
The roadside checks in recent times have shown that one goods vehicle in 10 is so unsafe as to merit an immediate prohibition on its use. This serious position has made an impact on us all.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the road hauliers have said that the roadside check is not all that it seems because the vehicles selected for spot-checking appear to be in need of checking? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that not every vehicle passing the check point has been checked?

Mr. Swingler: I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am referring to spot checks in the fullest sense of the term. This does not mean that every

vehicle passing the check point has been checked. There are certain obvious mechanical difficulties about doing that. Nevertheless, there has not been the selectivity suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It can be taken that, while not every vehicle was checked, a genuine sample check has been taken. In any event, 10 per cent. of vehicles were found to be so defective that the inspector issued an immediate prohibition notice on their movement. This is a serious position and it is one of the reasons for the introduction of these additional measures.

Mr. Bessell: We must get this in proportion. When the spot checks were first introduced I, on behalf of my party —being responsible for transport, as I still am—spent 48 hours with one of the testing crews. The practice was to stop vehicles which appeared to be most unsuitable for the road. I assure the Minister that this was deliberately done.

Mr. Swingler: That may be so. Those carrying out the checks have discretion in this matter. I am informed that on some occasions a completely random sample has been taken, while on others an attempt has been made to stop all vehicles. Whatever the position, thousands of vehicles have unfortunately been found to be seriously defective, and no hon. Member will dispute that.

10.15 a.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Minister is being reasonable and as this is such an important point he is right to be firm. If he is basing these penalties on the results of these surveys—which he admits may have been biased [Interruption.]—I use the word "biased" not in an unpleasant way, in that certain vehicles were picked out because they appeared to have defects— surely he must take that into account when considering the strength of the penalties.

Mr. Swingler: Without arguing about the way in which these tests are carried out—I have no wish to go into the details of that now—it is indisputable that thousands of vehicles have, regrettably, been found to be seriously defective. There have been serious cases in the courts and many hon. Members have written to me about flagrant cases that have occurred


and the serious impact that those cases have made on the public, who have said, "How is it possible for vehicles with such serious defects to be allowed to be driven freely on our roads until a scandalous accident takes place?"
I have had to consider all these matters. I have pointed to the contrast between the facts as they appear in this respect, about the need to raise the standards of the maintenance and efficiency of vehicles, and the extent to which the licensing authorities have used their power under the present law to revoke, suspend or curtail licences. Hon. Members who are acquainted with instances where licensing authorities have used that power under the present law will know that it has been used in only a very few cases.
In considering why this is the position, we can look at the answer given by the hon. Member for Chippenham—the answer given by the licensing authorities —that the present law contains the qualification that the licensing authority may not use this power unless
… he is satisfied that owing to the frequency of convictions or prohibitions, or wilfulness of the act or omission leading to the conviction or prohibition in question or the danger to the public involved in that act or omission…
Unless the licensing authority is satisfied on all those grounds then, under the present law, he may not use the power to revoke, suspend or curtail a licence. In other words, it is incontestible to those who have examined the law that licensing authorities themselves feel—on their interpretation of the law—that they are severely restricted in the use of the power to revoke, suspend or curtail even when confronted with facts about serious defects occurring in a large number of vehicles.
My difficulty in considering the Amendment is that it appears to be far too similar to the very inhibition in the present law that has caused licensing authorities to have doubts on the use of their power. It appears that the hon. Member for Chippenham is again saying that this power of revocation and suspension should not be used in the respects he has outlined unless there has been evidence of repeated and persistent misdemeanour over a period of years. We feel that that is not a step towards making the measures effective or towards giving

licensing authorities the necessary discretion to use their power of revocation and suspension in the way that it should be used.
I make it plain that, of course, all these are appealable. There is no question of arbitrary justice by a licensing authority. But we feel strongly that the authorities should be given wide discretion, in respect of serious offences which cause danger, death and disablement on the roads, to use their power to revoke licences or suspend them. If this qualification were inserted, it would be interpreted as more or less a repetition of the present law, and we know that disqualification under the present law has been little used, in spite of the considerable increase in the number of defective vehicles on the road.
For these reasons—because we want to get a serious strengthening of the law in this respect, because we trust the licensing authorities to use their power justly, because there is a system of appeal against any penalty handed out by a licensing authority—I ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Awdry: We do not intend to divide on the issue. No great point of principle is involved. It is really a question of judgment. We believe that the Amendment Would have made the Bill fairer. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 240, in page 89, line 36, leave out from 'section' to end of line 40.

No. 241, in line 45, leave out from 'direct' to 'that' in line 2 on page 90.— [Mr. Swingler.]

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 243, in page 91, line 12 to leave out 'said Act of' and to insert 'Road Safety Act'.
This is a drafting correction. The phrase,
… the said Act of 1967…
clearly referred to the Road Safety Act, 1967, which is mentioned in paragraph (f) of subsection (4), when paragraph (f) immediately preceded paragraph (h). But the new paragraph (g), containing a reference to the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, was interposed in Committee,


and the reference in paragraph (f) is now unclear. The Act referred to is, of course, the Road Safety Act 1967, and the Amendment makes this clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 244, in line 33, at end insert:
'but, notwithstanding section 57(1A)(b) of this Act, no other operator's licence held by the person in question shall authorise the use by him of any vehicle at a time when its operating centre is in an area in respect of which he is disqualified by virtue of the order'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 245, in page 91, line 34, to leave out from 'authority' to 'licence' in line 45 and to insert:
'makes an order under subsection (5) of this section in respect of any person, the authority may direct that if that person, at any time or during such period as the authority may specify—

(a) is a director of, or holds a controlling interest in—

(i) a company which holds a licence of the kind to which the order in question applies; or
(ii) a company of which such a company as aforesaid is a subsidiary; or

(b) operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who hold such a licence,

that'.

The effect of this Amendment is to limit the use of the powers of Clause 65(6) to a case where a person has been disqualified under subsection (5) from holding an operator's licence; at present the powers of subsection (6) are available in any case where an operator's licence has been revoked. The powers themselves remain unchanged—that is, they give the licensing authority the right to revoke, suspend or curtail the operator's licence of a company or partnership with which is associated a person who has been disqualified from holding an operator's licence; in the case of companies, the association may be by way of a directorship or a controlling interest in the company itself or a holding company controlling that company.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Camichael: I begto move Amendment No. 246, in page92, line 6, to leave out from ' persons'to end of line 17 and insert:
(7A) A licensing authority who has made an order or given a direction under subsection (5). (6) or (7) of this section may, in such

circumstances as may be prescribed, cancel that order or direction. (8) A licensing authority shall not—

(a)give a direction under subsection (1) or (2) of this section in respect of any licence; or
(b)make an order or give a direction under subsection (5), (6) or (7) of this section in respect of any person,

without first holding a public inquiry if the holder of the licence or that person, as the case may be, requests him to hold such an inquiry.

The main change introduced is the new subsection (7A), which gives a power to the licensing authority to cancel, in prescribed circumstances, an order under subsection (5) or (7) disqualifying a person from holding an operator's licence, or any directions given under subsections (6) or (7) that a company's or partnership's licence may be liable to disciplinary action if a disqualified person is associated with them.
The lack of this power was a defect in the Clause, since there would have been no way in which such an order or direction could have been countermanded, however much circumstances might have changed over the years. This could have been particularly serious for a person disqualified without time limit. A magistrates' court may, in the circumstances set out in Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, remove an order disqualifying a person for holding a driving licence; it seems more appropriate to follow the form of Section 19(4) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, which allows removal of a disqualification for holding a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence in prescribed circumstances.

Mr. G. Campbell: In taking out a large section of subsection (7), the Government have not reproduced the rights of appeal which are in the Bill as drafted. The words in question are:
… and any person in relation to whom these powers are exercised … shall have the same rights of appeal in respect thereof as the holder of the licence or special authorisation …".
Those words are not reproduced in the Amendment. Perhaps this is provided for in another part of the Bill as amended, but I should be grateful for an explanation.

Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps I should have gone on to explain this, but we are dealing with a very technical and


complicated Amendment. However, if the hon. Gentleman will study the Government Amendment No. 252, with which we are shortly to deal, he will see that his question is answered and that provision is made for appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 247, in page 92, line 19, leave out ' the foregoing provisions 'and insert:
'subsection (1), (2), (5), (6) or (7)'.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 248, in page 92, line 21, leave out ' Minister' and insert ' Transport Tribunal'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I understand that it would be convenient to discuss the following Opposition Amendments: No. 250, in line 25, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Tribunal'.
No. 251, in line 26, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Tribunal'.
No. 252, in line 44, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Transport Tribunal'.
No. 254, in page 93, line 5, leave out from 'appeal' to end of line and insert:
'under this section the Transport Tribunal'.
No. 255, in line 6, leave out 'he' and insert 'it'.
No. 256, in line 8, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Transport Tribunal'.
No. 257, in line 9, leave out from 'manner' to end of line 33.
No. 299, in page 103, line 13, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Transport Tribunal'.
No. 300, in line 17, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Tribunal'.
No. 301, in line 18, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Tribunal'.
No. 302, in line 28, at end insert:
'or
(c) being a holder of a special authorisation, is aggrieved by any direction or order of the licensing authority under subsections (1) to (4) of section 75 of of this Act,'.
No. 303, in line 39, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Campbell: We thought it convenient that all these Amendments should be considered together, Mr. Speaker, because they are all on the same point,

although they arise on different parts of the Bill. They concern the question of whether appeals should be to the Minister or to the Transport Tribunal. Besides the appeals under the quality licensing part of the Bill, with which we are dealing at the moment, there is also appeal under the quantity licensing part later in the Bill, in Clause 75. We believe that it is wrong that an appeal should be to the Minister for two main reasons. First, the Minister gives general directions to licensing authorities and he is, or should be, a maker of policies. We believe it wrong that the policy-maker should also be the court of final appeal. We believe that appeals should go to a practical body concerned with the equity of the cases with which it is dealing, and that that body should not be connected with policy making. The Minister is bound to be connected with policy making on different methods of transport.
10.30 a.m.
The second point concerns time. Those in trade and industry with whom we have discussed this point are certain that if the appeal is to the Minister there will be delays of many months before there is a finding. They believe that the Departmental system is such, and Ministers so hard pressed with other business, that it could be a very long time before the results of appeals are known.
The composition of the Transport Tribunal under the Bill is to be roughly the same as that of the existing tribunal. The workings of the existing tribunal are understood by trade and industry, and it is broadly acceptable as an appeal body.
The curious paradox in the Bill is that under Clause 75 the Government have provided for the Transport Tribunal to deal with some appeals. Therefore, they recognise it still as an appeal body. Those appeals are concerned with revocation and suspension of special authorisations, the name for the licences under quantity licensing, to which we are coming shortly. Therefore, I ask the Government why they are making arrangements for the Transport Tribunal to deal with some of the appeals and for other appeals to be dealt with by the Minister. This is a new idea.
This is not a matter simply affecting the road haulage industry; it will affect trade and industry of a wide character.


Everyone using vehicles will come within the quality licensing system; that is, broadly over 30 cwts. unladen or over 3½ tons plated weight. The operators of vehicles, from the farmer to the trader, will be concerned in these appeals. If the system of quality licensing is to be acceptable and is to be reasonably efficient, it must be a system to which confidence will be attached by those using it. If the appeals are concentrated on the Transport Tribunal this will make the whole system much more acceptable to those who have to use it.
I recognise that the Minister may say that there will be more work involved in these appeals than the Transport Tribunal has at present. I would be ready for any changes that may be necessary to deal with that. But that does not alter the total number of appeals which are likely to come forward. They presumably will be the same. Therefore, we believe it would be better for this body, which is recognised as the appropriate body for these appeals, to deal with them.

Mr. Manuel: One of the strong points which the hon. Gentleman was making was that, because the Minister would be associated with the legislation, it would be better if appeals went to the Transport Tribunal. Would he apply the same argument to appeals to the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I was not talking about the legislation. I said "policy making". After all, the Minister is supposed to decide policies. He may introduce legislation, and that is what we are coping with now. That is one of the results of policy decisions. I think the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) must be referring to appeals concerning criminal offences, and so on. They are of an entirely different character. The decisions which will have to be taken on quality licensing or quantity licensing, to which we will come later, will be technical and complicated decisions weighing up various factors in accordance, as we think, with rather vague criteria. This is different from appeals for clemency and other appeals which go to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Home Secretary. I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman on that point and also made plain to the House why not only we on this side, but all those with

whom we have consulted in various trades and over a wide range of industry, would prefer the Transport Tribunal.

Mr. Swingler: Under our system there is provision in a number of cases for appeal to the Minister of Transport. There are many cases in which my right hon. Friend is called upon to act in a quasi-judicial capacity in determining arguments. For example, appeals from licensing authorities on bus fares have to be determined by my right hon. Friend in his quasi-judicial capacity. Another example concerns the car testing scheme. If disciplinary action is taken against a garage proprietor, who is an approved examiner of cars under the car testing scheme, an appeal lies to my right hon. Friend.
In the proposals in the Bill we made a distinction between appeals involving safety factors and appeals involving economic matters. That is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). We have said that in the case of quantity licensing, as we all call it, appeals should lie to the Transport Tribunal, because these involve the determination of certain economic matters connected with the proposed criteria of reliability, cost and matters of that kind. In the case of appeals concerning quality licensing, the main point is road safety. My right hon. Friend is the Minister for road safety. He is charged with the responsibility for promoting policies to raise the standard of road safety. We thought, therefore, that it was appropriate that the Minister should have the opportunity to influence the safety standards of the road transport industry by the determination of appeals on quality licensing. We thought that that might be a legitimate or desirable object.
We all recognise that the Transport Tribunal is a highly responsible body. It has a vast knowledge of the road transport industry. It has existed for a long period of time under our licensing system and has vast experience in dealing with road transport matters. Our view was not determined by the volume of work. However, we recognise there are many complicated matters involved in the introduction of the quality licensing system.
In the Bill we are freeing 900,000 vehicles from licensing. That is, more


than half the vehicles in the road transport industry will no longer be subject to licensing, so there will be a certain diminution of work in that respect.
I appreciate the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend has studied the Amendments put down by the Opposition on this point and has considered the matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many consequential Amendments, which naturally he has not been able to devise, will be required if this is accepted. My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he will consider sympathetically the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and that it is more than likely that when the Bill reaches another place he will put down the necessary Amendment to meet the hon. Gentleman's point and direct all appeals to the Transport Tribunal.

Mr. Awdry: Is the Minister saying that we can expect an Amendment along the lines of that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) to be introduced in another place?

Mr. Swingler: Yes.

Mr. G. Campbell: If I heard the Minister aright, it sounds as though the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment in principle and make these appeals to the Transport Tribunal rather than to the Minister.
The Minister made one statement about which I am a little uncertain. He said that in quantity licensing the Government had decided to make the appeals to the Transport Tribunal, but in quality licensing the Minister ought to be allowed to intervene. Under quantity licensing there are appeals to both the Minister and the Tribunal. Under Clause 75 they are to the Minister, and under Clause 76 to the Tribunal. That is one thing which made us realise that the Government had not drawn a clear distinction between quality licensing and quantity licensing, which is what the Minister was explaining.
We are, naturally, pleased that the Government have accepted our arguments, and I hope that as I say this the Minister will indicate assent that the Government have undertaken to intro-

duce an Amendment in another place to make all these appeals referable to the Transport Tribunal and not to the Minister.

Mr. Swingler: Mr. Swingler indicated assent.

Mr. Campbell: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 249, in page 92, line 25 after 'licence' insert:
'or, as the case may be, the person in respect of whom the direction or order was given or made under any of those subsections'.

No. 252, in page 92, line 37, leave out from second ' or ' to second ' or ' in line 40 and insert:
(aa) being the holder of an operator's licence in respect of which, or a person in respect of whom, a direction or order has been given or made under section 57(5) or 65(1) to (7) of this Act:.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 67

CONTROL OF THE USE OF LARGE GOODS VEHICLES

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 258, in page 94, line 1, leave out 'ten' and insert 'eleven'.
The Amendment, like Amendment No. 268, arises from an undertaking given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) who said that he would consider whether the lower limit of pay load above which a special authorisation was required for a load of the so-called bulk commodities should be raised from 10 to 11 tons. He said that at col. 2472 of the Committee Report.
10.45 a.m.
As my hon. Friend said in Committee, the arguments are evenly balanced. Raising the figure to 11 tons is probably justified on the grounds of flexibility. It will help to get rid of a small but awkward anomaly which might arise in a few cases, where it will be possible for a lorry not exceeding 16 tons plated, and therefore not requiring an authorisation, to carry more than 10 tons of a bulk commodity without authorisation, while an identical pay load in a lorry just over 16 tons would need an authorisation. There are very few lorries not exceeding


16 tons plated which are capable of carrying more than 11 tons, so the Amendment will virtually avoid that anomaly. I hope that the House will find this concession acceptable.

Mr. G. Campbell: We had a full debate en a similar amendment in Committee. The Minister was unable to accept our Amendment then, but we are glad that on further consideration the Government have recognised that this is a much more sensible figure.
The Government have tabled a number of Amendments, and in the interests of saving time I have spoken briefly or not at all. We recognise that by this and other Amendments the Government have moved towards our viewpoint and recognised the arguments which we advanced in Committee. We are glad that they have done so. We wish that they had been ready to accept our Amendments in Committee, because had they done so they would have saved a lot of time and we could have moved on to other matters. We are, naturally, pleased to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I join the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) in thanking the Minister of State for the Amendment. The matter was debated at some length in Committee, and was the subject of many representations to hon. Members on both sides. I echo the words of the hon. Gentleman about other Amendments which have been accepted, including some of my own. That has undoubtedly been helpful, and this degree of flexibility is very much appreciated.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 264, in page 94, leave out lines 24 to 26.
The Amendment is necessary to remove the words inserted into the Clause in Committee by Amendment No. 1209 in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), which was accepted in error.
The effect of the words in the Clause is to disapply the definition of "controlled journey", which is relevant to the need to hold a special authorisation, to Devon, Cornwall and the development areas. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's

Amendment is uncertain, but its intention is clearly contrary to Government policy, and will seriously undermine the whole quantity licensing system. These areas will not be affected by quantity licensing any more than will other areas.

Mr. Bessell: I am deeply shocked.

Mr. Manuel: What did the hon. Gentleman expect?

Mr. Bessell: It is no good the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) making comments of that kind from a sedentary position. The facts are simple. The Amendment was in my name in Committee, and the subject matter of it was debated.
When we came to the vote, the Chairman of Standing Committee F asked clearly whether I wished to move the Amendment formally, and I said, "Yes." He then put the Question, the Conservative Whip gave the customary "Aye", the Chairman looked at the Government benches, whence there was no response or dissent. Quite properly, he declared the Amendment carried. Am I now being asked to believe that the Minister of State, Ministry of Transport, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the two Government Whips and practically all the Labour backbenchers on the Committee were not aware of the business being transacted—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening with profound interest, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but you will understand that I am incensed, having had an Amendment of considerable importance to my constituents and the development areas accepted, to find, on Report, that the Government have gone back on their word.
However, let us suppose that it was accepted in error. That in no way justifies this Amendment. Having made the error, if it were an error, the least that the Government could do is honour their undertaking which they gave by the original acceptance. The background to these three lines is clear. Subsection (2) defines the purpose of the foregoing subsection, which in turn sets out the controlled journeys relating to the quantity


licensing system. I argued in Committee, supported by Members of the Opposition, that this would impose severe hardship on the people of Devon, Cornwall and the development areas.
There is a high rate of unemployment in Devon and Cornwall, an ageing population and a serious exodus of young people in search of jobs in the urban areas. There are problems not only of unemployment but of low wages. I would be the first to admit that the Government have tried to deal with this by designating most of Cornwall a development area and this has helped the county, but conditions are still bad in Scotland, Wales and other areas, where hardship exists which does not exist in the country as a whole.
Therefore, it is reasonable to exempt those areas from the conditions of quality licensing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quantity licensing."] I am sorry, quantity licensing. Indeed, if quantity licensing is to be applied to these areas, it will be a complete reversal of the Government's avowed policy of assisting those areas; that is why I was not surprised that they should have decided to be consistent with that policy by accepting my Amendment in Committee.
Another factor is that, in many cases certainly in Cornwall, there are very bad road communications which would make quantity licensing an even greater burden. Many journeys would be impossible within the prescribed hours, so we are also affected by the provisions for drivers' hours. But, if we could have relief over quantity licensing, the position would be different.
There are many crucial Amendments to come and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak on this Amendment, so I will not take any longer. I know that they will oppose by every means in their power this complete betrayal of the people of Devon, Cornwall and the development areas by the Government going back on their solemn word in a matter in which they had appeared to show commonsense and leniency. I hope that we shall oppose the Amendment here and that, if we fail here, it will be dealt with in another place.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has tried to blow

this matter into a big balloon, but it is a very light balloon and it will drift away. We admit that an error was made and everyone knew that it was. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) is not so serious about this. He is more lighthearted and effervescent and up in the clouds, while the hon. Member for Bodmin is often despondent, like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).
We admit the error, of course. The Government Whip, who was distracted by something else in the Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can mention the fact that there was an error, but we cannot discuss at length the causes of the error. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: I can say that there was an error. But is it to be penalised by writing in the lines which the hon. Gentleman wants? He made a mistake, because of lack of time, in referring to this as quantity licensing, when it is quality licensing—

Hon. Members: The hon. Member has it wrong now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether it is quantity or quality licensing, the question is whether it should apply to Cornwall and Devon and designated development areas.

Mr. Manuel: The quality of my speech seems to be deteriorating. I made the same error as the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the House will forgive the original error, as it usually does when it is admitted, and that we can proceed.

Mr. G. Campbell: This is not an error which just leads to some small change. The effect of the Amendment will be enormous. It is extraordinary that the Government should seek to remove an exemption for development areas which was inserted in Committee and that the Parliamentary Secretary, who represents a development area himself, should move the Amendment. All the lip-service paid by Government spokesmen to their supposed policies of regional development, and all Ministerial statements on this subject put together would stretch from Land's End to John o' Groats, two areas which would be affected by the Amendment—

Mr. Manuel: What did the hon. Gentleman's party do?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman should listen when some of the things which he has mixed up, including quality and quantity licensing, are explained.
If the Government intended to accept the original Amendment, why do they suddenly change their minds about four weeks later? There has been no sudden improvement in the situation in Scotland in that time. If, as the Minister said, this was an error—and it was not intended at all—then this surely is an admission of incompetence in the Committee. The Amendment went through when there were three Ministers and two Government Whips present in the Committee. A Government whose errors are better than their decisions are a very peculiar Government indeed.
11.0 a.m.
The exemption from subsection (2) is, in effect, an exemption from subsection (l)(a). It means that the controlled journey provisions of 100 miles would not apply to Devon, Cornwall or any development area. No licensing restrictions would be placed on distance, and this would be welcome to trade and industry throughout the development areas. It would go a long way to allay the anxiety which there is about the burdens which this system of quantity licensing will place on these areas.
If the Government persist with the Amendment, they will be condemned for a cat-and-mouse episode with the development areas. Certainly the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) will have been treated extremely badly, since this was his proposal which the Government accepted. Admittedly, the Government had already earlier voted down some excellent Conservative Amendments which would have had the same effect.
In the development areas there are broadly two situations. The first is in the industrial areas near freightliner terminals, where the proposed quantity licensing system over distances of 100 miles or more will be cumbersome and laborious. Some incredibly difficult decisions will have to be taken by licensing authorities, whether they are taken against the background of the three

criteria in the Bill, against the criteria of speed, reliability and cost, or whether —and this will come in a later Amendment—other factors will be brought in. These will be difficult decisions and the result may be that British Rail's or the Freight Corporation's objections may be upheld and various industries in these areas will then lose their flexibility. They will not be able to use the road services to which they have been used at short notice and they will become dependent on the railways for certain services.
I will give only two examples at this stage. The first is the effect of these provisions on the Scottish fire clay industry, which at present provides 44 Per cent. of the fire clay in Britain. This industry can now compete with the English fire clay industry because its transport is not too expensive. It also does not have to suffer the breakages which it suffered when fire clay and fire bricks were sent by rail.
The second example is that of perishable commodities like fish. In the herring fishing industry seasonal landings are sometimes of a greater magnitude than usual and transport is required at short notice. Normally road transport is able to deal with the situation rapidly. This may not be possible if this cumbersome system of quantity licensing is imposed on the industry.
There is, then, the second situation of the remoter development areas. I refer to areas where there is either no railway link or where the railways cannot provide a competitive service with road transport. In such cases the Government have said that applications for licences—or "special authorisations" as they are called—will be granted more or less automatically. If that is so, why not exempt these areas? Why make them go through the process of detailing every possible journey, load or return load and then have to apply for special authorisations to coyer those details? There are many industries which, if they could be exempted from this application procedure—even if the licences will be granted automatically— would be greatly relieved to know that they can send their goods—their own goods in their own lorries—more than 100 miles without having to go through all this artificial procedure.
My hon. Friends and I are utterly opposed to this idea of quantity licensing.


We believe that firms should be allowed to take their own decisions on what is the most efficient method of transport for their goods. The right way for the railways to attract traffic—which is what they are doing at present—is for them to make their services more efficient, in particular through freightliner services. The users of transport are those most concerned. I refer not to the road haulage industry itself but to people who may not run their own transport. They are concerned about getting their goods to the ports and to their customers on time and in good condition.
Then there are those who use then-own transport and run their goods in their own lorries. They, too, are much concerned about the system of quantity licensing being proposed. Every trade and industry that uses transport does not like this system of quantity licensing because it is bound to be damaging to the economy of the country as a whole. The least the Government can do, if they insist on introducing this system, is to exempt the development areas from it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: We have been treated this morning by the Opposition to a debate which has reached the nadir of irrelevance to the matter under discussion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made their views on quantity licensing clear at great length at a number of sittings on the Bill, but to tack on to the Government Amendment a debate on the broader issues of quantity licensing is, to say the least—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Chair will take care of what is in order.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) dealt extensively with the subject of quantity licensing and the provisions covering the development areas. Surely we must be enabled to reply to the points he made.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair allows hon. Members to reply to what is said in debate.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said that the elimination of the three lines which we are considering will have a

profound effect from John o'Groat's to Land's End. As I represent John o'Groat's, I might be permitted to comment on the issue. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member that the inclusion of these three lines make obsolute nonsense of the quantity licensing provisions. It is typical of the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Bill that they would rather make a nonsense of the Measure than seek constructively to amend it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This has been typical of their approach throughout.
The Member for Moray and Nairn said that if these three lines were allowed to remain the position of certain perishable goods would, somehow, be protected. I am at a loss to see how this would be achieved. In any event, the position of the carriage of such perishable goods as fish would appear to be well covered by the requirement that an objection by British Rail cannot be sustained if the goods cannot be reliably carried. This would appear to be a classic case by which the goods to be carried are protected.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Member was not in the Committee. He does not realise that we had a debate particularly on the question of fish and the Government were not able to give that assurance.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member should not assume that because I did not attend throughout the Committee sittings I have not read the proceedings. I have read the Report of all five sittings at which this matter was considered.
The hon. Member suggested that we should retain these three lines in the Bill because that would protect the remoter areas. The question of exemption of the remoter areas was considered. Apart from other difficulties, there was the problem of definition. The hon. Member and his hon. Friends have taken particular exception to a parallel attempt to define remote areas with reference to the Selective Employment Tax. They are extremely inconsistent.

Mr. George Younger: The hon. Member must know that the definition complained of with regard to hotels has nothing to do with remoteness of an area, but to employment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The only definition we are concerned with here is Devon and Cornwall and certain development areas.

Mr. Maclennan: These three lines would have the effect of rendering entirely incomprehensible and unworkable the quantity licensing procedures. In opposing this Amendment the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) cannot seriously have been attempting to improve the Bill by the inclusion of these lines.

Mr. Bessell: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed, I have almost finished my speech. It is almost impossible to determine what kind of effect this provision will have. The specific reference to Devon and Cornwall would put them into a different category from other areas.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Hear, hear; they are.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn considered that they were in the same category as John o'Groat's.

Mr. Bessell: Does the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seriously think it right that a decision of a Committee of the House of Commons, irrespective of how it was taken, should be reversed in this manner? Does he think that that is showing proper respect for Parliament?

Mr. Maclennan: I wish that I had given way to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) before. It is quite obvious that a nonsense must be removed from the Bill, at whatever stage it was included in it. It is a matter for satisfaction that my hon. Friend has had this opportunity to rectify an inadvertent error which occurred at an earlier stage.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: There is a serious point about this Amendment concerning Cornwall. I said "Hear, hear" when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that there was something different about Devon and Cornwall from other development areas, because that is quite true.

The Minister of State said in his opening remarks that Devon and Cornwall would not be affected by quantity licensing more than any other district, but that is not so.
The geographical features of the district are not appreciated. Frequently I am accosted by hon. Members who say, "I have been in your part of the world". When I ask where they have been, they say they have been to Exeter. Exeter is half way between London and Penzance. The West Country consists of a long narrow peninula sticking out into the Atlantic. If one uses a compass on the map and puts the point into Cornwall and then makes a circle, one finds that there is land for a distance of 100 miles to the east and possibly to the west, but the rest of the circle is in the sea. My house in Truro is only nine miles from the south coast of Cornwall, and 14 miles from the north coast, but I am several hours journey from Saltash and the same distance from Penzance. This provision of 100 miles radius as the crow flies is absolute nonsense because most of the circle would be in the sea. Road hauliers in Cornwall, and to a lesser extent those in Devon, will be much affected by the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Member is assuming the rôole of an executive of the Tourist Board.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: This has nothing to do with the Tourist Board. This Clause deals with quantity licensing as applied to the carriage of goods in a large goods vehicle by road. The provision which exempts Devon and Cornwall exempts them from the necessity of getting a special authorisation making a journey exceeding 100 miles. That is a reasonable provision because 100 miles from any point in Cornwall is mostly in the sea. It is not reasonable to put a provision of this sort into an Act of Parliament. It is reasonable to have some special provision for Devon and Cornwall. I admit that this applies much more to Cornwall because Devon is much wider.
This Clause as to quantity licensing, taken in conjunction with a driver's hours, will make a very substantial difference to those engaged in horticulture or the fish trade. It will also be difficult to obtain agricultural produce.


Small producers of vegetables and comparatively small producers of fish in Cornwall will not be able to supply the districts which they supply at present. There is a strong case for special consideration for Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. John Nott: The hon. Member who represents John o'Groat's has much less well-informed constituents than those who reside at Land's End. They are well aware of the very real dangers which these quantity licensing provisions will entail for their livelihood apparently than those who live in the North of Scotland.
Under the pressure of the Guillotine, I shall make my remarks brief and factual, although I do so with reluctance because this Clause is of fundamental importance to the future livelihood of my constituents in the West Country. They are seriously concerned about its effects. The Minister said that these provisions would not affect development areas any more than other areas. I think that was the gist of what he said. The Minister is very badly informed, or else he misunderstands the worries which these provisions will cause, if he believes that to be the case.
In Cornwall we do not have any market of any size within 100 miles of my constituency. The nearest market of half a million people is 200 miles or more away. Although it is possible to draw a line as the crow flies between Land's End and Carmarthen and to say that if a haulier took goods to Carmarthen he would not need a quantity licence, if he took goods to Carmarthen he would not need a quantity licence, if he took those goods to Bristol he would need such a licence. This is the kind of anomaly which makes complete nonsense of these provisions. Carmarthen is 292 miles by road, yet for that journey no quantity licence would be needed. A quantity licence will be required to carry goods to Bristol, which lies 192 miles from my constituency, much nearer by road. This is just one of the ridiculous anomalies.
To a great extent, Cornwall's livelihood depends on getting fresh produce, particularly fish and vegetables, to the main metropolitan markets. If we are not able to obtain quantity licences to

get our fish and vegetables to the main metropolitan markets of London, Birmingham and Manchester, it will have a devastating effect on the livelihood on the whole of West Cornwall. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, this is an area of exceptionally low incomes and high unemployment.
What will happen to the road transport industry in these areas if, as a result of the non-granting of a quantity licence, the more profitable traffic is creamed off the roads on to the railways? If that happens, clearly the operations of road transport will not be economic, unless tariffs are increased substantially. The raising of road transport tariffs in these areas will have a serious effect on the cost of living and on the attraction of light industry to the development areas upon which we greatly depend.
It will be asserted that we are protected because a quantity licence will be granted, unless it can be shown that the railways are able to compete on speed, reliability and cost. This does not give us any comfort, because how can a licensing authority better decide whether the railways can compete on speed, reliability and cost than people who have been in the business all their lives and have years of practical experience?
In Committee the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) understood this point very well. He put the point very well in these words:
I have always thought that transport managers and traffic managers, incompetent though many of them may be, are in a far better position to make transport allocation decisions than is a licensing authority." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 23rd April, 1968, Col. 2678.]
This is our belief. The hon. Gentleman went on to say several times that his objection to the whole quantity licensing provisions was based on practical reasons and that quantity licensing would not work in practice.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It is worth my reminding the hon. Gentleman that a recent survey conducted in the Midlands between 1953 and 1958 proved conclusively that only 13 Per cent. of transport managers had a detailed breakdown of ton mileage costs.

Mr. Nott: I was merely referring to what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee. I share his view that a transport


manager is in a much better position to assess speed, reliability and cost than is a licensing authority which may be appointed by the Minister. I do not think that a licensing authority is in a position to judge this. If there is an inquiry, how can a tribunal assess the accuracy of figures produced by the railways? We all know from the hearings of the transport users' consultative committees that the figures produced by the railways are absolute mumbo-jumbo. How will a tribunal be able to make a decision which transport users over many years can make from experience?
I understand that the basic idea of quantity licensing is to shift perhaps 10 Per cent. of traffic from the roads to the railways. Why must we have this cumbersome bureaucratic licensing procedure to achieve this shift, when probably it was already in the process of happening under the freightliner arrangements? What is the object of having this cumbersome procedure which will do great damage to outlying areas like my own which have no markets within 100 miles and which therefore will have to apply for quantity licences on practically every one of their principal industries? Why must we have this procedure when people who have been in the transport business for 20 to 30 years, even though some of them may be rather inefficient, can judge speed, reliability and cost far better than any bureaucracy appointed by the Minister under the Bill?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I have some sympathy with some of the sentiments expressed by hon. Members opposite, but I am amazed at the fantastic assertion by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), whom I normally respect as somewhat of an authority on Cornish affairs, that Exeter is half way between London and Penzance. As a former long-distance driver, I was surprised to hear this, because Exeter is 170 miles from London and Penzance is 281. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman's other comments had some substance.
If Devon and Cornwall are to be excluded from the provisions of quantity licensing, it is only logical and consistent to exclude the whole country. Why should Devon and Cornwall be put in a privileged position? Though I back

quality licensing to the hilt and though I am very much in favour of a reduction of drivers' hours, I have always said— in Committee and at meetings throughout the country—that I do not think that quantity licensing is needed; because, if we say that we must have a licensing system to prop up the National Freight Corporation and freightliners, we are saying, in other words, that we do not believe in freightliners.
If we are to exclude only Devon and Cornwall and the development areas, we are not taking into the account the fact that many road hauliers operating from Devon and Cornwall have back-loading arrangements with hauliers operating from areas outside the development areas. Industry in Devon and Cornwall and in the areas at present exempted will be just as much catered for by operators within the areas as by operators outside the areas.

Mr. Bessell: If the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Minister to remove the quantity licensing system, there will be no difficulty between the two sides of the House on this Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield: I had rather suspected that that would be so. Because there are some intricate link-ups between hauliers operating from the areas which are at present excluded and hauliers operating from the Midlands, Manchester or London, it is just as logical, even on that argument, to exclude the whole country from quantity licensing. Apart from Devon and Cornwall and the development areas being in a privileged position from that point of view—I have tabled an Amendment, which has not been selected to cover the back-loading point—if only Devon and Cornwall and the development areas were excluded, it would put transport managers in those areas also in a very privileged position.
I believe that the person who can best decide how his goods be sent is the transport manager, because many transport managers have an infinity of goods, products, loads and destinations which only they can have a full, competent knowledge of and whose method of transport only they can decide.
11.30 a.m.
If in future Cornish transport managers will be able to make transport allocation


decisions on a whole range of considerations, whereas in the rest of the country licensing authorities will have to make transport allocation decisions on a basis of speed, reliability and cost, it will mean that Cornish transport managers will be in a privileged position. On this argument it is logical to exclude the whole country. A transport manager in Devon and Cornwall takes into consideration the availability of transport, speed of delivery and a whole range of quality and service factors which any transport manager who is doing his job properly takes into account. Transport managers in Devon and Cornwall and the development areas only will be able to do this. Transport managers in the rest of the country will have to go to the licensing authority and have a decision made on the three criteria.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on Devon and Cornwall, but the words in the Bill cover all the development areas, virtually the whole of Scotland and a very large area of Wales. Almost half the country would be affected.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I have pointed out that the Amendment includes not only Devon and Cornwall but also the areas to which he has referred.
By far the most serious consequence of the Bill is the statement that it makes that the Government believe in freight-liners for Devon and Cornwall and the development areas but do not believe in freightliners for the rest of the country. I have always said that the freightliner must stand on its own two feet, and it must do so. The article in the business section of the Financial Times yesterday shows quite conclusively that the freight-liner is standing on its own two feet.
Why have a licensing system in one part of the country to prop up the freight-liner when there is no such licensing system in the other half? Road hauliers and others who wish to send traffic by freightliner in one half of the country will be antagonised by the licensing system. I hope that in the other half of the country there will be co-operation between the British Railways Board, the National Freight Corporation and road hauliers. The application of quantity licensing to those parts of the country

to which it still applies in the Bill has had the direct effect of antagonising road hauliers and dissuading them from sending traffic by freightliner. This effect will apply to one half of the country but not to the other half.
If the whole country is not excluded from quantity licensing, licensing authorities will be in an extremely difficult position. The northern licensing authority, the Scottish licensing authority and the western licensing authority when they come to decide whether or not an applicant should get a special authorisation, will be able to take into account a whole range of factors apart from cost, reliability and speed. In the other licensing authority areas the only factors to which consideration can be given, except in a marginal case—and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that concession —will be cost, reliability and speed.
There are so many inconsistencies if quantity licensing is applied to one half of the country and not to the other, that the only logical thing to do is to cut out altogether quantity licensing.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Although there was a great deal of cogency in the argument of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), too much has been said about Devon and Cornwall and too little about the development areas. The development areas should have special protection, and the Government are wrong in not opposing this form of wording in Committee and now changing their mind and giving a stab in the back to the development areas. I am surprised that hon. Members on the other side of the House who represent development areas are silent on the Amendment. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is not normally silent, and I hope his silence means that he will vote with us in the Division.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I am merely awaiting my turn to speak. Would the right hon. Gentleman put this in perspective? Is he not aware that today there is quantity control of 190,000 vehicles, and we are talking about future legislation to deal with only 100,000 vehicles.

Mr. Peter Mills: While, naturally, I have a bias towards Devon and Cornwall, the argument is equally true for all the other development areas.

Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was making an intervention. I hope, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has sat down, the interpretation of my intervention will not be that I have made a speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has sat down. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills: The development areas should be exempted for practical reasons. If the legislation goes through, most of the good work that has been done in development areas, and particularly in the South-West, will be undermined. There is no need for these restrictions and delays. This is typical of the Socialist nonsense we get these days. I cannot understand why it is necessary to plan every single detail of our lives.
The road haulage operators know their job and how to organise. They do not need Government interference. Since my area is devoid of railways, it will be very difficult to divert any of this traffic on to the railways. Already the means of communication are difficult. Why add to the fears that already exist in my area? Manufacturers who want to come into the area are not helped when they realise that not only are communications difficult but restrictions are to be put on them by the Government. I can give many instances of manufacturers who would like to come into the Bideford, Barnstaple and North Devon area but who say, "With all these restrictions and difficulties, why schould we come?"

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—

Mr. Mills: I have only two minutes. I have been told that. I have to sit down after that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Restrictions of this sort do not help the development of areas such as the area 1 represent Hauliers are playing their rôole very well, and they should be encouraged and not restricted. They play a vital part already and should be given freedom to continue. Legislation of this

sort will do untold harm to development areas, particularly in the South-West. For that reason, I oppose the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will take note of our fears and the dangers which lie ahead.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I confess that my short time in the House has made me something of a connoisseur of synthetic rage. We have heard some fine examples of righteous indignation from the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and some of his Conservative friends. I was especially touched by the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for the Liberal Party's spokesman. He seemed to think that he had had a raw deal, although it appeared to me that he seemed to be enjoying the little bluster with which he opened the proceedings. It was all fantastic nonsense. Parliamentary history is spattered with examples of Governments having to take out Amendments which have slipped through for a variety of reasons.
Living in a development district, naturally my constituents are interested in the merits of the arguments, but even the most fanatical opposer of the Bill would not expect the Government to listen with a semblance of seriousness to the arguments that we have heard.
The Transport Bill is an extremely controversial measure in the north-east of Scotland, and no one is more aware of that than I am. As the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn said, there is a great deal of anxiety about it, though in all honesty it must be said that a great deal of it is founded upon misapprehensions and a complete lack of knowledge of what is intended in the Bill, and hon. Gentlemen opposite must bear their share of responsibility for that. I have never heard so much deliberate misrepresentation as has occurred on occasions about the Transport Bill. For example, having read the propaganda that has gone out, an enormous number of people in the north-east of Scotland believe that, as a result of this Clause, no vehicle will drive more than 100 miles from Aberdeen in any circumstances.
If we are to have a useful debate, it can only be in circumstances where both sides of the House agree to try to state the facts, even if they have to go on to


put their own gloss on the results which will flow from them.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn gave three main reasons why he opposed the Amendment. He said that the machinery would be intolerably clumsy in industrial areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said, that may be an argument against quantity licensing throughout the country. However, it is totally irrelevant to the Amendment. Though I would not accept it for a moment, there may be a case for total abolition, but, in the context of this debate, one cannot advance those general arguments, which apply as much in the Midlands, London and the South-East as they do to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about problems in the remoter areas. What we have to look at is the best way of getting round them and how serious they will be. I am extremely cynical about any Government who start making exemptions, whether they be for the crofting counties or for the remoter areas, in circumstances like these. Once we start doing that, we create anomalies and fringe areas. Understandably, the Opposition will raise Cain about all sorts of other places being left out which they feel are just as much affected. Mention was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of the row over hotel concessions in the Selective Employment Tax provisions. In much the same way, there would be a great outcry in the north-east of Scotland and, for example, in Moray and Nairn, if it was excluded from a concession which applied, for instance, only to the crofting counties.
I accept that there may be specific problems, but the answer is not to try and tear up a system which is broadly justified over the majority of the country. However, in saying that, the Government must be prepared to see that the system works sufficiently flexibly in Scotland as a whole and in other development districts which may be affected. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn referred to a specific case which is of paramount interest to my constituents, and that concerns the fish trade. In our part of the world, it is the key example.
I was glad to receive some reassurance from the Ministry in a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question recently which said that licensing authorities, in the case of objection by the railways, would take into account the fact that the railways have refused to carry goods in the past and have thrown them on to the roads. I was told, too, that they would take into account the enormous investment locally in heavy refrigerated trucks for the efficient carriage of fish by road. But that is the kind of factor which is important and on which we have to nail down the Government to ensure that industries dealing in perishable goods, where there are likely to be short-term gluts, produce special problems. We have to ensure that the licensing system will be operated flexibly and that the licensing authorities will take these factors into account.
The Question to which I received a satisfactory answer deals with one facet. However, we shall not create good will if we go at the whole idea bald-headed and try to abolish it and render it ultimately useless and unworkable. These are not good tactics, nor is it in the best interests of my constituents and those of hon. Members representing other development areas.
11.45 a.m.
When he opened the general attack on the subject in Committee, the hon. Member for Bodmin referred specifically to various parts of the country and the difficulties of journeys from such places as Caithness and Sutherland. He went on:
They are journeys which frequently can only be made by road if they are to be satisfactory to the producer, and if costs of production and transport are to be kept at a reasonable level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 4th April, 1968; c. 2494.]
There is a problem about keeping costs to a reasonable level, but surely the safeguards of speed, reliability and cost which have been written into the Bill will take care of that difficulty. It is with the intention of ramming home the difficulty and ensuring that it will be taken care of that we should be co-operating in this debate.
I doubt very much—I do not say that I disbelieve it, because that would be discourteous—whether a large number of firms wish to move to Barnstaple or Bide-ford, or even to Scotland, and are


being kept out because of quantity licensing. If that has been said to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), it: is almost certainly a piece of political enthusiasm—[Interruption]—or a polite—

Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Gentleman should see the letters.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Perhaps of more importance is to see by whom they are written.

Mr. Dewar: I agree that there are problems. We are all worried about the state of our roads. However, the licensing system which we are discussing is not a major obstacle, and neither is it keeping industry out of areas such as those to which I have referred. If I believed that, I would vote against the Government, and continue to do so. But I do not believe that it is anything like the major disadvantage which hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested. The flexible use of the machinery which the Government have constructed should be able to eradicate most of the difficulties.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to know what worries me a great deal more than the proposed quantity licensing system, they should look at the Budget and at the considerable costs which will be laid upon the transport industry as a result of the Finance Bill. That is a much more worrying matter than the present quantity licensing system—

Mr. Bessell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker ruled that this debate could not be extended in the wide way in which the hon. Gentleman is now extending it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Obviously the Amendment admits of a fairly wide debate, but I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) should now confine his remarks to the point at issue in connection with the development areas.

Mr. Dewar: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but from you and not from the hon. Member for Bodmin.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite had a wide-ranging debate about transport. The point has been made, and I have great pleasure in sitting down.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I represent the same area as the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and I represent the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), Banffshire (Mr. Baker) and South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who would have spoken if there were not so many other important Amendments to come.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said that transport is vital in the North-East and he was cynical about the exceptions which are now in the Bill. But that is not half so cynical as people in the North-East will be about his speech this morning. I respect him for admitting the problem, which is more than the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did, but in saying that we cannot make exceptions and should accept the Minister's assurance he shows himself the kind of paper tiger which we in the North-East have come to expect.
I am not concerned with the Minister's assurance but with the burden of the Bill on transport operators in my area. What will happen when these provisions are put into operation and the Minister's assurances are forgotten? That is why I represent the interests of industry and road haulage in the North-East of Scotland. We have had good service there from the road haulage industry. I will not go into the arguments about haulage of fish, meat and other fresh products, which require quality of service, speed, reliability and economy, such as the private industry gives. It is a service which we want to continue and it should be competed for commercially between private road haulage and the railways. By all means let us have the freight liners, but let the competition be fair and commercial.
More employment is needed in my area, and this will add just one more burden to our transport operators and will affect the attraction of new industries. In Montrose in my constituency, the unemployment rate is 5 per cent. A consideration in attracting industry is good transport. If we add one more burden, that will be much more difficult. My area has a higher proportion of people employed in road haulage than Scotland


as a whole or England and Wales. The representations which I have received have come not just from the operators but from the drivers, because it is their livelihood which will be affected. I hope that we will think of the drivers, who have come to see me many times recently. I hope all of us on this side will reject this Amendment, which is entirely out of touch with feelings in Scotland, especially in the North-East.

Mr. Younger: I was very sorry for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), who, by some quirk of fate in the Ministry, had been sentenced to introduce the Amendment, which is deliberately designed to extend to the development areas the restrictions of quantity licensing. The hon. Gentleman, supported unanimously by the Scottish Labour Party members, is proposing these restrictions against development areas.
His most astonishing statement was that the development areas would be no worse affected than any others. Of course they are, for three reasons. First, they are further from their markets. Well over half the industries in Scotland, for instance, have to send goods not 100 but 200 or 300 miles and are, therefore, far more affected than firms in the South-East or London. Second, the distances within the areas are usually well over 100 miles, which again means that they are worse affected. The third reason is the balance of transport in the development areas. Almost every transport operator in remote areas balances his uneconomic journeys with the economic ones which make a profit.
This proposal is an attempt to cream off the most profitable services on to the railways. I support, and always have supported, the interesting idea of freight-liner services, which have done very well and will do better, but I question whether they should be developed by putting unwilling users on to them when they do not think that it is in their interests. Will this build confidence in the freightliners?
Nor should we suggest that these powers will never be used. Many hon. Members opposite have said that our concern is synthetic because the powers

will never be used when they would be disadvantageous. Then what is the point of them? We know that it is intended that they shall be used and that the Bill will be a failure if they are not, and that they will be used against industries in development areas.
If that happened, it would mean that people in industry, who have made commercial decisions that it is more economical or faster to send goods by road, would be told by a licensing authority to send them by other means. This means that the authority will assume the right to a better opinion on this matter than those running the business. I question whether any licensing authority, however enlightened, can be expected to make better decisions than those running the industries.
I hope that the Amendment will not go through, since it is a direct blow to development in development areas.

Dr. John Dunwoody: This debate has come about by accident, since these three lines were inserted by a strange means, but it is in the interests of the House to discuss the transport problems of some of the peripheral areas. I will concentrate on Devon and Cornwall, which have real difficulties.
There was discussion earlier about the geographical problems of the far South-West. The peninsula of Devon and Cornwall has unique transport and communications problems. Although some of the mileages which have been quoted may not bear a great relation to reality, nevertheless, the far South-West and West Cornwall in particular are much further from the main centres of population than most people realise. The counties of Devon and Cornwall are large and the distances to be covered are greater than in most other parts of the country. The quality of the communications there is poorer and the progress that can be made along the roads and railways is slower than elsewhere.
12 noon.
There are other special peculiarities of this part of the country. We have heard a great deal from hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies about the difficulties being faced by Scotland. They have been right to bring those problems to our notice, and I have no doubt


that hon. Members who represent Wales and other areas could do the same. Nevertheless, the far South-West is unique among peripheral areas in that the greatest density of population is concentrated on the most peripheral parts of these peripheral areas. In Wales and Scotland on the other hand, the more distant parts are the most sparsely populated.
My hon. Friends who represent the far North of Scotland are fully aware of this and while they represent large tracts of country, they will realise the compactness in terms of population of some parts of the country. The fact that the population is concentrated in the peripheral parts of the peninsula of the South-West and that the small amount of manufacturing industry that we have is also concentrated in those parts causes special difficulties for us.
Some of our other special difficulties derive from our geographical isolation. We have high rates of unemployment and great difficulty in attracting new industry. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned a town in his constituency which has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent. There are many Cornish towns which would like to claim that figure. There are, therefore, some special problems, economic and social, which result from this geographical isolation. We have very low rates of pay and low standards of social amenity because there is not the wealth in the community that there is elsewhere. To a large extent this is related to our geographical isolation and poor communications. It is, therefore, useful that we have been able to go into greater detail on this subject because of this debate.
It would be illogical to try to parcel up the country in a sort of patchwork quilt. Many anomalies have arisen in the past when this has been done in other Measures. It is, therefore, right that the Bill should apply equally to the whole country. I regret much of the criticism and highly emotive propaganda which has been put out about the Bill. I agree that there are genuine causes for concern in peripheral parts of the country about some aspects of the Measure, but the case of those who speak for the isolated areas has been damaged by the extravagant and ludicrous criticisms which have been made about the; Bill. This has done consider-

able damage because the idea has been put abroad that no road transport will be able to go more than 100 miles.
I have been particularly conscious of this mileage figure in West Cornwall, where 100 miles does not take one far. We have the sea on three sides and one is only at the other side of Exeter when 100 miles are up. The provisions in the Bill about speed, reliability and cost mean that in areas such as the one I represent the prospects of the transfer of traffic from road to rail are nil. We hear a great deal about freightliner depots. I would like to think that such a depot will be provided in West Cornwall in the foreseeable future, but I fear that it will not.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Did not Mr. Speaker rule this argument out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think so.

Dr. Dunwoody: I regret that we will not have a freightliner depot in West Cornwall. The very fact that we will not have one means that, as a result of the Bill, there will be little or no transfer of traffic from road to rail. Many fears have been expressed by special interests in Cornwall, such as the fishing industry, horticulture and the broccoli trade. While those fears have been genuinely felt, they have been whipped up for reasons which are not in the interests of Devon and Cornwall and they are not truly justified.

Mr. Nott: If the hon. Gentleman is right and if there is no need for concern because of the speed, reliability and cost factors, would he not agree that that is an argument for excluding these areas from the quantity licensing system? Would he not further agree that transport managers in these areas are able to assess speed, reliability and cost themselves without having a tribunal bearing down on top of them?

Dr. Dunwoody: I explained that it would be ludicrous to try to make a patchwork quilt of the whole country and to divide the nation into areas to which one Clause would apply while another would not. All sorts of exclusions would be required. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made this very criticism—the criticism I am making of their


efforts to retain these three lines in the Bill—of certain other recent Government proposals. The Bill should apply equally to the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I trust that the same will be said of other aspects of transport policy. Many areas represented by hon. Members who have spoken today have not had a fair crack of the whip on transport in the last 20 to 30 years and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss transport in general on the Amendment.

Dr. Dunwoody: I cannot go along with those who wish to retain these three lines in the Bill. The country must be treated fairly and squarely as a whole, but I trust that this will mean that in future policies covering traffic, roads, air services and the railways will apply equally generally.

Mr. David Webster: I appreciate that many of my hon. Friends still wish to speak, and this is a tribute to the damage which the Government Amendment will do to their constituencies. However, many other Amendments must be discussed. Because of the guillotine, we will not be able adequately to debate them. We must, therefore, reach a quick decision on the Amendment, and perhaps we will still have a little time to discuss such matters as the criteria, timing, the procedure of quantity control and the question of the onus of proof.
The Government have not only been inefficient in Committee—we had a moment of joy when the Liberal Amendment was approved—but now they are being mean as well. They are being particularly mean in obliging the unfortunate Minister of State, who himself represents a development area, to move an Amendment to exclude the development area. The Government have reached an all-time low.
The damage that will be done by special authorisations to any form of distribution will be aggravated in development areas because of their special problems, such as their low employment, low wages, seasonal unemployment and the very high average age. Anything that we can do to alleviate the hardship felt by these areas will be helpful. Although

there was some hilarity in Committee when the Liberal Amendment was approved, the more one considers it the more one realises that it could be excellent for areas which will be badly hit by this abominable part of the Bill, because it will put them in a somewhat better position.
If an industrialist is considering establishing a factory somewhere and if he cannot make his own decisions for the movement of his goods to the ports and markets, he will not site it in an area in which he comes under this type of control. Businesses will not be encouraged to set up new factories in the development areas, and I particularly have in mind American investment in Britain. I know that in, for example, Dundee this type of investment is very much welcomed. I wonder whether these facilities are now likely to be provided at such a great distance from the main ports and main market centres. That is the grave danger.
The quantity licensing system means tampering with businessmen in making their commercial decisions. The Amendment will damage the chances of foreign investment setting up in development areas, although it has been the policy of successive Governments to attract foreign investment. Existing undertakings will operate under a tremendous differential—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) pointed out, the clay industry in the midlands of Scotland, which was competitive, now will not be. There is also the problem of English china clay in the far West.

Dr. Dunwoody: Surely my hon. Friend is not trying to suggest that vast quantities of china clay leave Cornwall by road. Surely it leaves mainly by sea and rail. To suggest that it is mainly by road is incorrect.

Mr. Webster: There is so much china clay that a vast amount admittedly goes by sea. I was recently in Cornwall and spoke about the Bill to a receptive audience. A tremendous amount of china clay goes by road, and that is well known. I notice that the hon. Gentleman called me his hon. Friend. I take it that this means he will come into the Lobby with us.
The importance of this issue is shown by the fact that so many of my hon. Friends from development areas feel so deeply and strongly. Yet many hon. Members opposite from development areas have not even bothered to hear the debate. This Amendment is being forced through on a payroll vote, which again shows the low depths to which the Government can plummet, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Carmichael: I explained earlier that the Amendment was instituted because of an error in Committee. Many attempts have been made to minimise the fact that there was an error. To suggest that the Government did what they did in Committee on this matter out of goodness of heart is wrong. It was an error. Yet one can be pleased in some ways that, because one of my hon. Friends did not say "No", about twelve hon. Members have been able to expand in this House the lengthy debates we had upstairs in Committee on this subject of quantity licensing. Many interesting constituency points have been made by hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee.
I am rather concerned that a number of hon. Members have made reference to the fact that I am a Scotsman and have alleged that I am denying something to Scotland. I make it plain that I think that this is a great Bill and I am convinced that history will confirm that view. I have met the Scottish road hauliers, the T.R.T.A. and many other people about the Bill, both privately and in public and on television. I have found that one often gets a point of view from them when discussing it seriously in this way that is quite different from the reply one gets when asking merely for debating briefs.
The falseness of the anxiety of some hon. Members opposite is expressed in their claim that the development areas have complete freedom in this matter, but that business always knows best about these things. This is one of the matters I have taken up with the R.H.A. and it is amazing how often I have been told that it knows many transport managers who do not know their own costs. The necessity of quantity licensing will force them to look at their costs. We have never tried to hide our concern about the

spare capacity on the railways while road haulage continually expands. It is our belief that some of the expanding traffic should be used by the spare national capacity available on the railways.
We are told that the Government should not interfere in the development areas because business knows best. I remind the House of the example of the shipbuilding industry, which was gradually going down the river, as it were. It needed the Government to come along and say, "Business does not know best in this case. There must be a reorganisation of the industry and we will show you how to do it." The Government are pouring money into the shipbuilding industry, and the yards on the Clyde—

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we should discuss the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Carmichael: I apologise. I was trying to show that there are many cases in which mere commercial judgment is not enough and where other judgments must come into the matter. Both parties have followed a policy of regional development because they realise that there are other considerations much greater than purely commercial considerations.
I am not ashamed of the Bill. It is a great Bill. I have discussed it in the development areas of Scotland. I am willing to defend it. To accept the Amendment, made in Committee would mean that we did not think that quantity licensing was important or necessary. To exclude only one area would be quite wrong anyway, but the reference is merely to a "controlled journey". It would still be a matter for the courts to decide what a controlled journey is. Possibly it might be 200 miles or 20 miles. The only way to remove the ambiguity is to put Devonshire, Cornwall and other development areas in the same category as the rest of the country in this context.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: But why would it be impossible to try out both systems and see what the difference is in various areas?

Mr. Carmichael: Do the Opposition want a policy of quantity licensing? We have never had a definite commitment from them about it.

Mr. Webster: I can give the answer now. It is, "No".

Mr. Carmichael: The Leader of the Opposition told the Road Haulage Association that he would remove certain parts of the Bill. Apparently we would have a free-for-all in road haulage if the Opposition were returned to power. That is interesting.

Mr. Peter Walker: I make it clear that at the earliest opportunity we will completely and utterly do away with quantity licensing.

Mr. Carmichael: So the Opposition will do away with all quantity licensing if they are ever again in government. If nothing else, this debate has wrung from them a statement of their position on that issue and it is worth while for that alone. It means that anyone could get a licence under a Conservative Government.
Our case is quite clear. The only way to restore to the Bill the provisions we consider important in relation to quantity licensing is by accepting this Amendment.

Mr. James Davidson: I make no apology for rising to speak very briefly against this Amendment, because I have sat here throughout the whole of the debates on this section of the Bill. I feel very strongly about it, because these three lines are probably the most important part of the whole section. I have listened with considerable interest to the points that have been made.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who at least did us the honour of taking the whole matter seriously. Many hon. Members opposite did not.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) regards this as irrelevant to his area, and there are others who feel the same. [Interruption.] That was the word used. It will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Davidson: "Irrelevant" was the word used. I regard quantity licensing as being more relevant to the development areas than any other part of the Bill. The words in Clause 67(2) are:

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to … any development area so designated by the Board of Trade.
I regard those words as vitally important. If they are removed by this Amendment I shall vote with perhaps stronger feelings than on any other issue for many weeks.
A good point was made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). He put in a plea for flexibility. It is on this point that I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. Does he realise the doubt and uncertainty which this whole business of quantity licensing has raised in the North and North-East of Scotland?
I will give one or two examples. First, a small firm manufacturing farm trailers. It delivers farm trailers to anywhere in the United Kingdom at a flat rate of £8. It has a large order book for exports and it wishes to expand its works with a £30,000 extension—presumably borrowed money. It has a quotation from British Railways that if, as a special concession, it puts all its stuff on British Railways, they will give a flat rate of delivery of £28 to anywhere in the country. That is £28 as against £8. This little firm with a large export order book has delayed its £30,000 extension, because of this provision in the Bill.
One of the large paper mills in my constituency is perhaps typical of many firms which have peculiar shaped loads. It puts them on the road all over the United Kingdom very rapidly. Half of its transport fleet should be replaced, but it is awaiting the outcome of the Bill before deciding whether to throw good money after bad to replace these expensive long-distance transport vehicles.
A timber mill sawing up trees and transporting them well over a range of 100 miles. Is it to be forced to put its loads of timber into the railhead at Aberdeen, off-load them on to trucks, load them on to lorries again at the other end and deliver them? This involves double and treble handling. Or is it to be allowed to put its loads straight from the mill on to lorries and so to their destinations?
A factory producing high quality tinned foodstuffs competing with factories all over the United Kingdom. Is it to be forced to containerise its loads, to put its transport fleet out of action, and to deliver down South by rail?
Large quantities of grain can be shipped straight from the farms to the storage depots on the quaysides in South and Central Scotland. Are these farms to be forced to put their grain into trucks, load them on to the railway, and send them south by that method?
These are the kind of issues which are causing grave uncertainty and worry in the North and North-East of Scotland. I want an answer from the Minister right now—I will sit down in a couple of minutes—about the sort of considerations which will be taken into account before this special authorisation is given. This is what is causing uncertainty and worry.
I am not condemning quantity licensing out of hand but I want to know on what sort of conditions that special permission will be given to continue sending these loads by road?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Leadbitter. Hon. Members: No. He has spoken.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have as much right—[Interruption.]

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has already addressed the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) got up to intervene in a speech being made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He was under the impression that the right hon. Member had given way, whereas he had in fact finished his speech. In those circumstances, I do not think that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools has exhausted his right to make a short speech. Mr. Leadbitter.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was kind enough to challenge me and I responded. I think that he will agree that I asked him to give way by showing my hand, and he did so. I then indicated that I was waiting my turn, and I posed a question. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be patient. I have been patient. I have sat here now for 24—[HON. MEMBERS:

"Too long."] I have sat here now— [Interruption.] There is plenty of time. I have sat in the House now since Monday morning for over 24 hours. There is sufficient time, on a part of the Bill which, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, appears to be important, to listen to my argument, even though it may be disagreeable to them.
As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, there are already 190,000 vehicles under some form of quantity control. It is also well known that the tests of that control have not been exercised satisfactorily for a long time. However, it does not deny the fact that that element of control is there, and, under present legislation, British Railways have a right to indicate objection if they so desire.
The Government seek to project that principle of control, which has always been accepted, into terms which are more relevant to present-day conditions. Arising out of the development of the freight-liner service, these new conditions are of some importance. The tests of speed, reliability and cost—those are the words in the Bill—must not be considered to be the final conditions under which quantity control—

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order. Once again, the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is filibustering. None of this is concerned with the Amendment or development areas.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would urge all hon. Members to be both relevant to the Amendment and brief.

Mr. G. Campbell: Further to that point of order. The matters being discussed by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) are due to come up on another Amendment and we look forward to discussing them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will listen to the hon. Member very carefully. Mr. Leadbitter.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have now been speaking for three minutes and I have dealt only with the subject of quantity control. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about quantity


control so far as it is conditioned by the wording of the Clause to which hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly, I suspect, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), take exception. The argument of the hon. Member for Bodmin was principally concerned with Devon and Cornwall. He found himself in the unusually happy position, due to an error which has been admitted, of having his argument fortuitously accepted.
Nevertheless, we are discussing 100,000 vehicles or fewer. Out of 1½ million vehicles concerned with the carriage of freight, about 900,000 are exempted, and we are dealing with only 40,000 under the new quantity control provisions. In addition, about 60,000 people own their own vehicles and carry their own commodities. Of the 100,000 vehicles about which we are talking—

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the 100,000 vehicles are only in Devon, Cornwall, and the development areas? That is what the Amendment relates to. If he is, is it right that these 100,000 vehicles should be discriminated against, and every other vehicle exempted?

Mr. Leadbitter: These vehicles are not only in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been expecting the hon. Member to come to the proviso which is the basis of the Amendment. He has not yet mentioned it. He must speak to the Amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Bodmin asked whether these vehicles were only in the areas to which he referred. The answer is "No", and to use the word "discrimination" without qualification is not logical.
We are discussing whether we should have quantity licensing for part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) had a good point when he said that if we are not to have quantity licensing all over the country, it is better not to have it at all. On the other hand, if there is some merit in quantity licensing, it is illogical to have it for part of the country and to exclude other parts. I believe that the Government's proposal to intro-

duce quantity licensing for a limited number of vehicles, all of which are over 16 tons gross weight and which carry only 7 per cent. of the freight traffic—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: They may carry only 7 per cent. of the total tonnage, but it is 40 per cent. in ton mileage terms, which is much more important.

Mr. Leadbitter: That strengthens my argument. Comparative figures are always interesting. It is misleading to talk about 7 per cent. if my hon. Friend has in mind 40 per cent. of the traffic.
In a highly congested country such as this, Mr. Deputy Mayor—[Laughter.] I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My thoughts were on the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), and the only former mayor of a local authority to serve on a Standing Committee, to whom I intended to address my observations.

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a most shameful example of filibustering. We are operating under a guillotine motion, and yet the hon. Gentleman has made speech after speech and wasted the time of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) will conclude his remarks quite soon.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have my eye on the clock, and I have now spoken for seven minutes. It does not worry me if hon. Gentlemen opposite waste their time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are giving some credence to the allegation that he is filibustering. I hope that he will keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: I must insist that it is not my intention to filibuster. Speaking for seven minutes cannot be regarded as filibustering.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Under our present procedures the servants of the House do not keep a record of the length of speeches made on Report. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) is incorrectly interpreting the length of time for which he is speaking. He is filibustering. May we have placed on the Letter Board


a record which will confirm the untruthfulness of what he is saying?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the House, but I think that it would be advisable if hon. Members were not to interrupt the hon. Member who has the Floor. He may then come to a conclusion.

Mr. Bessell: Mr. Bessell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under the timetable Motion I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am anxious to conclude my speech. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is a clear example of discourtesy.
In view of the congestion on the roads, and because of the need to benefit from the vast investment in freightliner services, in Committee upstairs my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave me an assurance that some of the commodities now carried by road would be transferred to the railways. He answered a question which I asked about The Hartlepools and Teesside. Designated areas—and this is the nub of the Amendment—will not suffer because of this legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear how the hon. Member is relating

his remarks to the Amendment, which refers only to Devon and Cornwall.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member referring to a development area?

Mr. Leadbitter: I am referring to development areas, and I am anxious to take up a point made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton.
In Committee I expressed some anxiety about how quantity licensing would affect The Hartlepools and Teesside. My hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear that traffic now carried by road would not be forced on to the railways unless it could be shown that from the point of view of speed, reliability, and cost there was an irrefutably clear case for doing so. He made it clear that road hauliers would not be victimised or discriminated against. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton might well have benefited had he been a member of the Committee and listened to the debates, or been present in the House since Monday, instead of coming in at this stage and making mischievous interventions.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 260. Noes 220.

Division No. 192.]
AYES
[12.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Driberg, Tom


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunn, James A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, (E.)
Cant, H. B.
Dunnett, Jack


Alldritt, Walter
Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Alien, Scholefield
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Anderson, Donald
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Peter
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Armstrong, Ernest
Coe, Denis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Attains, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ennals, David


Bagler, Cordon A. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ensor, David


Barnes, Michael
Crawshaw, Richard
Evane, loan L, (Bim'h'm, Yardley)


Barnett, Joel
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Faulds, Andrew


Bence, Cyril
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dalyell, Tarn
Fletcher, Raymond (IIKeston)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foley, Maurice


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Ford, Ben


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Forrester, John


Boyden, James
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fowler, Gerry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Delargy, Hugh
Freeson, Reginald


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dell, Edmund
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Gardner, Tony


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dewar, Donald
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Court ay, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Dickens, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dobson, Ray
Gregory, Arnold




Grey, Chariot (Durham)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Richard, Ivor


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mackie, John
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackintosh, John P.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamling, William
Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Hannan, William
MacMillan, Malcoolm (Western Isles)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Watth'stow, E.)


Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Roebuck, Roy


Hasesdine, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rose, Paul


Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Henig, Stanley
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ryan, John


Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Manuel, Archie
Sheldon, Robert


Howarth, Harry (Weltingborough)
Marks, Kenneth
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howie, W.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hoy, James
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hynd, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Molloy, William
Swain, Thomas


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Swingler, Stephen


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Symonds, J. B.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taverns, Dick


Jeger, George (Goole)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Moyle, Roland
Thornton, Ernest


Jenkins, nt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Neal, Harold
Tinn, James


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Newens, Stan
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Norwood, Christopher

Varley, Eric G.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David (Consett)


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wellbeloved, James


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur

Whitaker, Ben


Leadbltter, Ted
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Mist Joan
Park, Trevor
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lipton, Marcus
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lomas, Kenneth
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Winnick, David


Luard, Evan
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, William (Rugby)
Woof, Robert


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Probert, Arthur
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor


McBride, Neil
Randall, Harry



McCann, John
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacColl, James
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


MacDermot, Niall
Reynolds, C. W.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.


A Mason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Balniel, Lord
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Burden, F. A.
Doughty, Charles


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Campbell, Cordon
Drayson, C. B.


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eden, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.
Emery, Peter


Bessell, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Errington, Sir Eric


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald



Blaker, Peter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Farr, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Corfield, F. V.
Fisher, Nigel


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Fortescue, Tim


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crowder, F. P.
Foster, Sir John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)







Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nioholas


Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'd field)
Ridsdale, Julian


Giles, Bear-Adm. Morgan
Lloyd, Ian (p-t[...]t-th, Langstone)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Lubbock, Eric
Royle, Anthony



Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Russell, Sir Roland


Goodhart, Phillip
MacArthur, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Scott, Nicholas


Cower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grant, Anthony
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Sharpies, Richard


Grant-Ferris, R.
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Silvester, Frederick


Grieve, Percy
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper
Teeling, Sir William


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hiley, Joseph
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Weatherill, Bernard


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Webster, David


Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pardoe, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kershaw, Anthony
Pounder, Rafton
Woodnutt, Mark


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Kirk, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Francis



Lambton, Viscount
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. R. W Elliott and


Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Clause 67

CONTROL OF THE USE OF LARGE GOODS VEHICLES

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 265, in page 94, line 34, at end insert:
(4) A journey shall not be a controlled journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if there are no railway lines which could undertake any part of that journey.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I suggest that it would be convenient for the following Amendments to be discussed at the same time: No. 266, in line 34 at end insert:
(4) A journey shall not be a controlled journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if more than half of that journey cannot be undertaken by rail owing to the distances of the starting point and the destination from appropriate railway terminals.

No. 267, in line 47, at end insert:
(5) A journey shall not be a controlled journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if the starting point or the destination is more than forty miles distant from the rail terminals which would have to be used for the goods in question.

No. 272, page 96, in line 23, at end insert:
(11) Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the carriage by road of any article or articles which by reasons of weight or size are certified by the Railways Board as being unsuitable for transporting by rail.

Mr. Campbell: Amendment 265 seeks to exempt from the system areas in which there are no railways at all. Amendments 266 and 267 should be considered together since the former provides for the situation where more than half of a journey cannot be undertaken by rail,


while the latter provides for the situation where there is a road distance of more than 40 miles from a rail terminal. This group of Amendments therefore brings to the attention of the Government situations where railways are either nonexistent or so exiguous as not to be able to provide an alternative service.
It is stated in Clause 69(3) that part of a journey must be undertaken by rail if there is to be an objection to an application for a special authorisation for services by road. We hope that the Government will confirm that neither the Freight Corporation nor the Railway Board can lodge an objection unless they can show that part of the journey which they would undertake is to be by rail.
The situations raised by the three Amendments will, for the most part, occur in development areas. As the debate on the last Amendment indicated, my hon. Friends and I believe that it would be best to release development areas from the whole paraphernalia of quantity licensing. If the Government are not prepared to do that, they should simplify the procedure for areas which are in the situation of the three Amendments, and so reduce the harm to industries and businesses arising from the irksome and unnecessary procedure which is involved.
We made some progress in Committee because there was added to the Bill a provision which will enable someone in such an area to send in a certificate when applying stating that no objection is raised by either the Freight Corporation or the Railways Board. That is a simplification of the procedure, but it still means that an applicant must go to those authorities to obtain a certificate, and this may take some time, unless the matter has been worked out, in general, beforehand. Another addition made was a change in Clause 71, which was the emergency Clause, and which now covers all cases of urgency and not just emergency. I recognise that that is an improvement in the procedure.
We still have the posititon of Ministers saying in Committee that in areas such as those described in this group of Amendments the Government are not prepared to allow exemption and that the grant of special authorisations will, in the words of the Minister of State, be "automatic". Thus, the Government's argument is that

the applications will simply be sent to the licensing authorities who will automatically grant them. This is creating the sort of patchwork system which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. Dunwoody) wants to avoid, because it will divide the country into areas where the grant of special authorisations will be automatic, on demand, in some and not in others.
At successive meetings of the Standing Committee we pressed the Government for an assurance about the form of the special authorisation which could be applied for in these areas. We now want the latest views of the Government because the Minister has had three or four weeks to consider the matter since we last discussed it in Committee. We want the Government's view of what has been called a "blanket special authorisation" for businesses in areas where either the railways do not operate or there is not an effective railway service.
In the Minister's last statement in Committee he went as far as to say, when answering a question put by me, that it would be possible for an applicant to apply for very wide terms which would cover "a multitude of journeys"—those were the words he used—and that went a long way towards meeting our request. However, if the Government cannot accept this group of Amendments and if they refuse to exempt these areas from quantity licensing, we require a clear statement.
Can the Minister make it clear that, for the areas that fall within this group of Amendments, it will be in order for an application to be made and granted covering any kind of goods, to and from any part of Britain, and covering the return load for any kind of goods and for the full period of the license; that is, up to five years? That would be a blanket authorisation. We hope that the Minister will give a straight answer, "Yes" or "No", to this question. We hope it will be "Yes". The Minister has gone as far as saying that it could cover "a multitude of journeys", but unless he now answers my question in the affirmative we cannot regard it as a real blanket special authorisation.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is referring to what is now the best type of A licence


available and that there would be great difficulty in obtaining such a licence under the present system from many licensing authorities?

Mr. Campbell: The purpose of the Bill is, among other things, to abolish A and B licensing and the Government have introduced a new system divided into two parts, one quality licensing, with which we have been dealing, and the other quantity licensing, with which we are now dealing and which we believe is unnecessary if the quality part is efficient.

Mr. Huckfield: Mr. Huckfield indicated assent.

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman shares our view.

Mr. Huckfield: Only on this point.

Mr. Campbell: If there were a form of blanket authorisation in the terms I have suggested, it would mean that many businesses would avoid having to think out well in advance all the possible services and journeys which they might have to undertake for months ahead and for which they would need to apply. If the grant of special authorisations is to be automatic, we should preclude the need for continual applications being made.
Some businesses cannot foresee exactly what journeys and services they will need. I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion over this because one Minister —he is no longer at the Ministry of Transport—said in Committee that managements should be able to foresee weeks ahead the journeys and services they will require. That may be so in a limited number of businesses. In others the nature of the business is such that they cannot foresee exactly what transport requirements will be necessary, and they need to be ready to operate at very short notice on unforeseen journeys. We hope that the Government, in expressing their attitude to this group of Amendments, will answer in clear terms this important point about blanket authorisations.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I support the arguments which have been most effectively advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). I apologise to the House and to the Minister for the fact

that I may not be present to hear the Minister's reply. This will be for reasons outwith my control. Because of the way in which the House is being currently mismanaged as to time, I am on a Committee where I also have to represent the interests of my constituents. I apologise to the Minister and assure him that no discourtesy is intended.
I support these Amendments because it seems transparent common sense that where journeys cannot be done largely or at all by railway it is nonsense that firms should be expected to have to go through the procedure of applying for an authorisation, even if it is granted automatically. If the Minister can give an assurance in precisely the terms asked for by my hon. Friend, that will be of great assistance to people living, working and operating in areas such as these.
I would prefer that the Amendments should be accepted so that there could be no doubt or question, because we do not trust assurances from the Government, but I certainly accept that if the Minister would give a specific and categoric assurance in precisely the terms in which my hon. Friend asked, that would go some way towards meeting our anxieties.
Of the three Amendments, Amendment No. 267 appeals to me most. If that were accepted circumstances might arise by which a substantial part of my constituency would be exempted from the horrors of quantity licensing. At the moment British Railways are continuing to run a freight service to Forfar in my constituency, the passenger service having been withdrawn.

Mr. Swingler: We did that.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The present Government did that; I hope that satisfies the Minister of State.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East) rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have no intention of giving way. We have listened to long and, as far as I can see— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will not be unduly provocative—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I would not dream of being provocative.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —in relation to other matters on this Amendment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I did not catch that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall not pursue the point.
The freight service to Forfar is at present under a sort of suspended sentence. We do not know whether it will continue at the end of the two-year period. If Amendment No. 267 were passed I would not know whether to wish that the freight service should be sustained or withdrawn because, if it were withdrawn, a substantial number of firms in my constituency would be freed from the whole paraphernalia of obtaining authorisations. If they were freed from that most of them would be delighted to settle for such a decision, even at the expense of withdrawal of the freight service which is used only to a limited extent and at limited times.
Where the railways cannot provide either complete or partial services simply because they do not have a service at all, not only should the authorisation be automatic but it should not even be required.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have already refused to give way to one hon. Member. I do not think that I should make exceptions.
If the Government are prepared to assure us that under the circumstances of the areas covered by these Amendments the granting of special authorisations would be automatic, I cannot see why they cannot go one step further and accept the Amendments.

Mr. James Davidson: Points on Amendments Nos. 265, 266 and 267 have been adequately made, so I shall speak more particularly on Amendment 272, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). That Amendment provides that
Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the carriage by road

of any article or articles which by reasons of weight or size are certified by the Railways Board as being unsuitable for transporting by rail.
I hope that when the Minister answers the debate he will take the opportunity, which he did not take earlier, of replying to the questions I put to him at the end of the debate on the previous Amendment. They are also relevant to this group of Amendments.
To give an example of the type of item we have in mind in Amendment No. 272, the paper mills industry, about which I know something, often has to transport large and unwieldy rolls of paper which are altogether unsuitable to go on the railways. They are too wide to go sideways on a truck and if they are put lengthways they do not adequately fill a truck. For this type of article there should be exemption. I should like the Minister to say whether this type of goods could be excluded from the provisions of quantity licensing because they are totally unsuitable for transport by rail.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the hon. Member suggesting that British Railways or the National Freight Corporation would seek traffic which would be too high or too broad for railway loading bases and that this would be physically impossible?

Mr. Davidson: I am not suggesting that, but that it would be unsuitable and uneconomic to load these goods on to railway trucks.

Proceedings on consideration of the Bill having continued for five and a half hours after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Order.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past One o'clock, p.m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Aluminium Smelters

Mr. Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the result of Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the Norwegian Government and the European Free Trade Association arising from the decision to site aluminium smelting plants in Great Britain;
(2) if Her Majesty's Government will publish a White Paper giving details of the negotiations and discussions arising from the decision to site aluminium smelting plants in Great Britain.

Sir E. Errington: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a position to announce his decisions as to the location of the United Kingdom aluminium smelter works; and when approximately work will be started on approved projects.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce his plans for the construction of aluminium smelters in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the representations from members of the European Free

Trade Association that the use of investment grants, as exemplified by possible aluminium smelters, are in breach of the European Free Trade Association Treaty.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the construction of aluminium smelting plants in Great Britain.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): Negotiations are still in progress with the British Aluminium Company and the R.T.Z./ B.I.C.C. Consortium about their proposals to erect smelters at Invergordon and Holyhead respectively, drawing power from the public electricity supply system. Planning permission has been sought in both cases.
Alcan Aluminum (U.K.) Ltd. is now applying for planning permission for the construction of a smelter at Lynemouth, near Blyth, of which the first stage would have a capacity of 60,000 tons and which would have an ultimate designed capacity of 120,000 tons. This smelter would draw power from a power station to be erected by the company, using coal to be supplied by the National Coal Board under a long-term contract.
In considering the companies' proposals, the Government have taken careful account of representations made by other governments. There have been full exchanges of views with representatives of the Canadian Government; and, following the discussion at the E.F.T.A. Ministerial meeting, I had talks in Oslo last week with the Norwegian Minister of Commerce and Shipping. The outcome of these discussions was recorded in a communiqué which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The United States Government also have made known their views.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision will be hailed with delight by all of us in the North-East. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed so much to making the decision possible and I assure them that this opens up a new era in the industrial history of south-east Northumberland.

Mr. Crosland: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for those remarks.

Mr. Ridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if it were not for the 25 per cent. investment grant, it would be economical to build smelters? If the answer is "No", does he not think that this is a subsidy which it ill befits the British people to have to pay?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. The level of investment grant open to these companies—which is more than the figure which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, since they are all in development areas— is exactly the same as the level of the investment grant open to any company that chooses to go into a development area, and, therefore, no question of subsidy arises.

Sir E. Errington: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason for the delay in arriving at the decision on the smelter at Holyhead? This matter has been going on for some time, and I should have thought that a decision was now possible.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, the matter has been going on for some time. But the fact is that we are considering here the creation of an entirely new industry in Great Britain which involves the most intricate questions of regional policy, fuel policy and international policy. Rather than to go as rapidly as possible for what might be a premature decision, 1 think we were right to take the time we need in order to examine the matter with complete thoroughness.

Mr. Lubbock: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what calculation he has made of the savings on the United Kingdom balance of payments from the contribution of these three plants?

Mr. Crosland: We would judge that by the early 1970s it would be in the region of £30 million a year.

Mr. Maclennan: Can my right hon. Friend say when a decision will be announced for the other two sites which have been considered for smelters, particularly at Invergordon? Can he say what capacity those plants are intended to have?

Mr. Crosland: Negotiations are going on very actively with the two other companies concerned and, of course, I want

a decision as soon as we can reach one. We are working on plans for an initial capacity of 100,000 tons for each of the other two companies.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from this side of the House that the pleasure which his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has expressed will be universally shared in the North-East of England? We welcome the choice of Lynemouth as a great addition to our hopes for the future of the North-East.

Mr. Crosland: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Following is the communiqué:

Mr. Kare Willoch, Minister of Commerce and Shipping, had discussions with Mr. Anthony Crosland, President of the British Board of Trade, in Oslo this afternoon on the plans for the establishment of new aluminium smelter production in the United Kingdom. These discussions were undertaken in pursuance of the agreement reached at the recent meeting of the E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council in London.

The Ministers exchanged views on the likely effects of the British plans on Norwegian exports of aluminium to the United Kingdom. It was not possible to reach an agreed evaluation of these effects. Mr. Crosland said that he would discuss the arguments put forward by Mr. Willoch with his colleagues in the British Government on his return to London and would let the Norwegian Government know as rapidly as possible the view of the British Government in the light of the latest discussions. Both Governments would then report to the E.F.T.A. Council.

Companies (Contributions to Political Parties)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for further legislation affecting contributions by companies to political parties and groups.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I think that the provision in the Companies Act, 1967, which requires political contributions to be disclosed is sufficient.

Mr. Whitaker: I commend Lord Carrington on his success as a director of Hambros Bank, but are not the activities of such companies obtaining money by false pretences, because shareholders have no chance of opting out of such contributions, whereas trade unionists are able to opt out of the levy?

Mr. Dell: I have a great deal of sympathy with the thinking behind my hon. Friend's Question. However, to enable shareholders to contract out would involve companies in difficulties. There is one way of contracting out, and that is to sell.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the brief answer for the Government to get a Prime Minister better than Lord North?

Mr. Dell: I understand that companies may make contributions if the contributions can reasonably be regarded as benefiting the company. A board which believes that the economy or the company will benefit from the return of a Conservative Government is allowing optimism to triumph over experience.

Mr. Roebuck: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong that shareholders should be forced to make this compulsory levy to the policies of the party opposite, very often by directors who are not appointed on merit but through the "old boy network"? Will he not propose an Amendment to the Companies Act to make contributions to political parties conditional upon votes of the shareholders or special resolutions at annual meetings of the companies concerned?

Mr. Dell: As I say, there is a way in which shareholders can contract out, and that is to sell. No doubt in deciding whether to sell, they will take account of the record of the company concerned.

Sir R. Cary: Has the hon. Gentleman any further plans, because existing legislation is merely prompting many companies not only to double but to treble their contributions? I think that we ought to be a little cautious about this matter.

Mr. Dell: As I have indicated, I think that the object, which has been achieved, to make shareholders and the public aware of the activities of these companies, is adequate.

E.F.T.A. (Motor Vehicle Import Duties)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek a revision of Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention to prevent member countries of the European Free Trade

Association from levying import duties on motor vehicles imported from other member countries, in contravention of the principles of the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Crosland: Under Article 6 of the E.F.T.A. Convention, Member States are free to apply revenue duties to goods imported from other Member States provided that there is no protective element in such duties. No revision of this Article is at present contemplated. But the current programme of work for E.F.T.A., adopted by Ministers at their meeting in London on 9th-10th May, provides for a review of the extent to which revenue duties could be reduced or eliminated on trade within E.F.T.A.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these revenue duties, which are up to 30 per cent. in some instances, are import duties, and is this not particularly detrimental to the British and Swedish motor car industries and, for that matter, the whole of E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend will be aware that, more than once, we have made representations about these revenue duties, particularly as they affect motor vehicles. Nevertheless, when he refers to a 30 per cent. level, those countries in E.F.T.A. which still have that are all due to reduce it substantially during the course of 1968.

Mr. Ridley: How can we expect sympathy from the members of E.F.T.A. over this matter when we ourselves have resorted to national protectionism for aluminium smelters?

An Hon. Member: Ask them about Norwegian fish.

Mr. Crosland: I asked them about Norwegian fish recently, because I have a strong constituency interest in fish. However, I do not think that anyone who considers our trading relations with E.F.T.A. as a whole can say that, compared with the other countries in E.F.T.A., this country has pursued a protectionist policy.

Investment Grants

Mr. Costain: asked the President of the Board of Trade what new instructions he intends to issue following the recent decision of the High Court in the


case of British Oxygen Company versus Board of Trade; and when he expects to be able to devise the booklet "Investment Grants", published by his Department in the light of the decision in that case.

Mr. Dell: I am considering with my legal advisers the question of an appeal against the decision of the High Court in this case.

Mr. Costain: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that, since this decision, the lack of action is causing the investment grant system to get into even more disarray. When will he make up his mind about it?

Mr. Dell: That will depend on the upshot of any appeal, if we start one.

Mr. Barnett: While totally disagreeing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), and accepting that the investment grant scheme is better than the old investment allowance scheme, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will nevertheless consider holding meetings between Board of Trade officials and accountants who have to deal with the problems in practice, so that there can be some improvement in the workings of the scheme?

Mr. Dell: One of the objects of introducing the de minimis rule, which was fully announced when the investment grant scheme was under discussion, was to reduce administrative difficulties.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman must announce very soon whether this judgment is to be appealed against or not. Alternatively, he must begin to implement the scheme in accordance with the judgment. Will he make up his mind soon?

Mr. Dell: We will make up our mind soon whether we are to appeal, and obviously a decision will be taken in the light of that.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the cost of abandoning the £25 minimum value rule for investment grants in a full year.

Mr. Dell: Information on which to make a reliable estimate is not available.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is not only acting illegally in this matter since the High Court judgment, but that it is open to very serious objection to exclude certain people just because their investments are small in total in units? Will he therefore reconsider this policy and say when he will be able to announce a decision?

Mr. Dell: It was made perfectly clear when the investment grant scheme was introduced that there would be a de minimis rule. Whether what we are doing is illegal will depend on the upshot of further proceedings in the courts.

Industrial Development (Yorkshire and Humberside)

Mr. Haseldine: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding industrial development in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region will not impose any limitations of space on companies endeavouring to expand in that area.

Mr. Crosland: I shall continue to give sympathetic consideration to applications for industrial development certificates for expansion of local firms in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region and for suitable new projects. Only one industrial development certificate has been refused in the region since the beginning of 1965.

Mr. Haseldine: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask whether he would accept that Yorkshire and Humberside has a tremendous potential which must not be frustrated, and that nothing should be done at this time to weaken the potential development of the region?

Mr. Crosland: I accept that the region has a tremendous potential, but I must point out that it has an unemployment figure of only 2·6 per cent., which is substantially lower than that in most development areas. Therefore, while we recognise its potential, we think that it would be quite wrong, in advance of the Hunt Committee's Report, to take special measures designed to help this region alone.

Mr. McNamara: While we are very happy about the flexible I.D.C. policy as it affects existing firms, may I ask my


right hon. Friend to look at the problem of new firms entering the area with a view to encouraging them, especially in those parts where we have large pockets of male unemployment?

Mr. Crosland: We try to consider the problems of new firms as sympathetically as possible and invariably approve new projects, provided that they cannot go to a development area. Generally, we operate the I.D.C. policy in as flexible a manner as possible.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the district of Thorne in my constituency, where unemployment is over 11 per cent., recently there was a refusal by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to allow planning permission for the extension of an existing local factory? Is he satisfied that there is complete liaison between the Board of Trade and the other Ministeries involved?

Mr. Crosland: If I may, I should like to look into the example that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Small Businesses

Mr., Weatherill: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to take steps to stimulate and encourage the prosperity and growth of small businesses in accordance with the undertaking given to the House on 10th February, 1967.

Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend hopes next month to launch a pilot scheme to assist small businesses to employ consultants. The Government have already announced a number of other measures which will help small firms including new or increased grants to the British Productivity Council, the British Institute of Management and the Centre for Interfirm Comparison.

Mr. Weatherill: Does the Minister recollect that on 10th February last year he accepted my Motion which urged him to take urgent and positive steps to encourage the prosperity and growth of this section of the business community? No action has been taken. These firms do not want subsidies; they want revision of the taxation system, particularly of the provisions in the Companies Act. Would the hon. Gentleman consider setting up a

small business development bureau, possibly before the return of a Conservative Government, which will not be long delayed?

Mr. Dell: The assurance to which the hon. Member refers was given by my predecessor. The hon. Member is quite wrong in stating that nothing has happened since. On the contrary, I have indicated a series of things which have happened since which could be added to. As to the point about setting up a small business administration, the idea proposed by the small "Neddy" group which is studying small businesses will be considered.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the crude point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), can my hon. Friend say if further action has been taken to help small firms with joint representations overseas? Does he agree that if there were this help to small businesses it would not only help exports but would encourage such firms to overcome export difficulties?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a series of schemes which help co-operative ventures in which small firms can take part.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the sort of measures he has referred to are merely minor palliatives in the face of problems caused for small firms by Government taxation changes and that this is where help is needed?

Mr. Dell: I do not accept that they are small palliatives. On the contrary, they can be of considerable advantage to small firms and many which have taken advantage of the many facilities the Government offer have greatly benefited so far. One of the troubles is that too few of these firms take advantage of the facilities offered.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not this another example of the Government's practice of clobbering firms with one hand and giving subsidies and palliatives with the other? Is it not time we got away from this pattern and let these firms stand on their own feet as they wish to do?

Mr. Dell: They are not clobbered. They are offered assistance which can be of great value. I should have thought that


hon. Members would be much better engaged in encouraging such firms to make use of the facilities which are available. These facilities are extensive.

Fish Processing Machinery

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed his considerations on the question of whether plant and machinery installed to fillet or otherwise process fish qualify for grant in accordance with regulations made under the Industrial Development Act, 1966; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dell: I am sorry that consideration of this subject is still incomplete. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is a quite unacceptable Answer. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this has been under consideration since last autumn? Is this the way in which he is trying to encourage industry?

Mr. Dell: As I said, I am sorry that this has taken a long time to decide. It is a difficult and marginal case. We are trying to look at it as favourably as possible. I think the decision will be rapidly available.

Limited Liability Companies

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many limited liability companies have surrendered that status in each of the past two years other than those which have been liquidated.

Mr. Dell: Section 43 of the Companies Act, 1967, under which limited companies may be re-registered as unlimited, came into force only on the 27th October, 1967. From then until the 28th May, 1968, 1,355 companies have reregistered as unlimited.

Mr. Jenkin: Substantial though that figure is, does the Minister of State accept that the real damage is done in respect of companies which never come into existence because of the new disadvantages under which small companies now have to labour? Will he try to make an estimate of that and therefore revise the tax laws and company laws which are proving so damaging?

Mr. Dell: There is no evidence at all of any such damage. When we compare the figure of 1,355 with the probable estimate of 375,000 exempt private companies before the Act came into force, there is no evidence here of significant damage.

Imports (Home-Manufactured Substitutes)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider a scheme for import saving designed to assist small firms in this country to offer home-manufactured substitutes for imported goods.

Mr. Dell: There are, of course, many existing measures of Government encouragement and support for competitive domestic production and devaluation has greatly strengthened the ability of firms large and small to compete against imports. But if the hon. Member has some specific proposal in mind, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Jenkin: Would the Minister of State undertake to receive a deputation from the Small Businesses Association, which has some valuable ideas which might be of some help in this context?

Mr. Dell: Certainly, Sir.

Imports

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what estimates have been made by his Department as to the volume and value of imports of primary products during the second half of 1968;
(2) what estimates have been made by his Department as to the volume and value of imports of manufactures during the second half of 1968.

Mr. Crosland: A forecast of the value of imports of goods and services, in the second half of 1968 was given in Part HI of the Financial Statement. I have nothing to add to this.

Mr. Blaker: Is that not rather a surprising Answer in view of the trend of imports in recent months and weeks, which suggests that that forecast is not going to prove right? Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the recommendation of the National Institute


that machinery should be set up for import controls? What is the Government's policy on that?

Mr. Crosland: On the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I think it still early to say exactly what the trend of imports will be over the year as a whole, although he is quite right in saying that they are still running at a disturbingly high level. On the second part of the question—the proposal of the National Institute—while, of course, all Governments must be ready for any contingencies at all times, the Government and I are strongly opposed to the idea of import controls, first because they would take a long time to have an effect and, secondly, because they would do damage to our international trading position and would invite retaliation.

Mr. Barnett: Would not the volume of imports be seen in better perspective if the Government said that the previous suggestion that we would have a £500 million surplus on balance of payments next year was not sacrosanct and that perhaps about £300 million on a rising trend would be more than satisfactory?

Mr. Crosland: I do not think it is a question of being sacrosanct in that way. If we achieved a surplus of £300 million that also would be a not unsatisfactory outcome. Nevertheless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have given strong reasons for saying that £500 million surplus next year would be highly desirable.

Mr. Higgins: As there were two forecasts for exports next year, what were the figures relating to them for imports of raw materials?

Mr. Crosland: Does the hon. Member mean exports or imports? The Question was about imports.

Mr. Higgins: Presumably imports are used in exports.

Mr. Crosland: Yes, some of them. I did not follow the hon. Member's question. The; Question I was asked related to forecasts for imports for the second half of next year. I understood the hon. Member to be asking a quite different question about exports.

Mr. Brooks: While accepting my right hon. Friend's reasons for opposing im-

port controls at this stage, may I ask him to consider making an immediate announcement that whatever contingency planning is undertaken on this subject the quotas which might one day be imposed would take account of the level of imports during preceding months?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I do not propose to make any such announcement. It would be most unwise to do so. Any announcement of this kind would give people the impression, wrongly, that we were going to introduce restrictions and would have the one single effect of increasing the volume of forestalling imports.

Company Law (Small Businesses)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to consult representatives of smaller businesses in order that their views may be taken into account in framing any future legislation affecting the operation of companies.

Mr. Dell: We intend to consult the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce about the proposals for companies legislation which we hope to make later in this Parliament and we are ready to consider the views of any other body representative of smaller businesses.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the Minister aware that the views of the C.B.I., which he proposes to consult on the question of small businesses, are often directly in conflict with those of the Small Businesses Association, particularly in the field of monopoly, mergers and restrictive practices, where I consider that the C.B.I. has very wrong views which are directly contrary to the interests of competition in small business?

Mr. Dell: I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I said in my Answer that I was prepared to receive representations from other bodies representing small businesses, and I have just offered to receive a delegation on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin).

Mr. John Fraser: If my hon. Friend is now giving a clear indication of further companies legislation, will he also


consider including provisions for industrial democracy, such as were hinted at during the passage of the last Companies Act?

Mr. Dell: That takes the Question very much wider. It was indicated during the passage of the last Companies Act that the future legislation which we would introduce during the lifetime of this Parliament would be concerned with implementing the remainder of the Jenkins Report.

Companies Act, 1967

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many requests he has had from firms for exemption from the requirements of the Companies Act 1967 to disclose information regarding matters not previously required to be disclosed by exempt private companies.

Mr. Dell: Forty two such applications have been received from former exempt private companies.

Mr. Shaw: These are early days for the working of the 1967 Act. Would the Minister confirm that all experience on disclosure gleaned between now and the promised new Act, which we are told is to be introduced before the end of this Parliament will be looked at with an open mind when the new legislation is being prepared?

Mr. Dell: We are watching what happens as a result of the provisions on disclosure in the 1967 Companies Act. But none of the figures available to us justify any of the fears about disclosure expressed on the benches opposite.

Industrial Development Certificates

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the actual and potential performance of a firm in the export and technological fields as qualifications to be taken into account when reviewing applications for industrial development certificates.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): These factors are already taken into account in considering applications for industrial development certificates.

Mr. Shaw: Does the hon. Lady agree that in these important fields, where it is essential to get the maximum expansion, there should be no discouragement to such firms? In particular, it is very often a severe discouragement if the necessity to move is part of the price they must pay for expansion.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Hon. Members opposite who represent development areas are very anxious to have advance factories and to have employment created in those areas. The I.D.C. policy is working with that aim in mind. This is something we must continue to do very actively.

Mr. Cant: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a general feeling in the country at large that the Board of Trade applies quite rigorously the rather primitive yardstick of relative unemployment figures, and that in areas such as the Potteries, where the unemployment figure is admittedly low, the potential export of the pottery industry is to some extent being frustrated? As it is now 60 per cent. of output, it should be encouraged.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I cannot accept that. The Board of Trade operates a very flexible I.D.C. policy and takes account of those pockets of higher unemployment in areas where we should normally not be flexible in our policies. It is important for the development areas particularly that we continue to keep tight control.

Advance Factories

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are followed by his Department in determining the location in which advance factories are to be built; and whether the regional economic planning councils concerned are consulted.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The location of advance factories in individual areas is determined by a number of considerations which include the present and expected employment position, the existence of other factory space, the availability of suitable land for further building, and the possibility of attracting occupiers when the factories are


completed. Consultations take place with other Government Departments which, like the Board of Trade, are also members of the appropriate economic planning board. Economic planning councils are concerned with the broad strategy of employment in their areas and not with the siting of individual factories.

Mr. Elliott: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the criteria she has given. Is she aware that there is considerable concern that there is insufficient research on the siting of advance factories according to need, and it is not time, so long after 1964, that economic planning councils were suggesting themselves as something more than "propaganda fronts"?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. Very careful account is taken of the situation in an area before we place an advance factory there, because we are anxious to get a tenant and to get a growth point working.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Lady consider consulting her right hon. Friend with a view to altering the arrangements so that private developers would also be able to build advance factories if so minded? At present they cannot do so because it is not possible to build them privately without an I.D.C. before one starts.

Mrs. Dunwoody: One accepts that the same rules do not apply to private developers. In some development areas private developers are going ahead with industrial estates quite successfully.

Films

Mr. Silvester: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the level of finance from overseas to be provided by major United States film companies for film production in the United Kingdom in 1967 and 1968.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I cannot give a precise estimate but the amounts in 1965 and 1966 were approximately £15 million and £18 million respectively and there is no evidence to suggest a recent reversal of this trend.

Mr. Silvester: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is some concern in the indus-

try that American restrictions may lead to a cut-back of American investment in films produced in this country? Would not she agree that this is just the time when the Government should make a statement that they are committed to some form of assistance to the National Film Finance Corporation to help British finance for the industry?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am aware of the concern in the industry about American investment, but we are examining the whole question of films legislation and it would be unfortunate to prejudge the matter.

Mr. Silvester: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the overseas earnings of films produced by companies other than the major United States film companies was attributable to films financed with the assistance of the National Film Finance Corporation in 1965 and 1966.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I regret that this precise information is not available. In 1965 and 1966, however, the National Film Finance Corporation made loans of £2,100,000 for 36 films with an aggregate cost of £6,100,000 and overseas earnings to date of £2,700,000.

Mr. Silvester: Does not the hon. Lady agree that there is considerable achievement by films of this kind, which earn foreign exchange? If she cannot make a commitment now about the National Film Finance Corporation, can she at least say that the new legislation will provide some means of channelling British investment into films in this country?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are anxious to do all we can to assist the industry, but, for obvious reasons, it would be premature to give a commitment now. The Corporation has been and is doing an excellent job and I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not the importance of keeping to the forefront of film production because of world potential in terms of foreign earnings mean that we should give high priority to helping the industry, at this time in particular?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We are naturally concerned that British films should continue to be as successful as they are at present in terms of world trade. They also provide an excellent shop window for our goods.

Department Stores (Retail Sales)

Mr. Moonman: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give consideration to recommencing the weekly spot checks on department store sales to enable a more accurate and up-to-date analysis of spending behaviour to be made.

Mr. Crosland: I do not propose to reinstate the weekly inquiry on sales of department stores, but instead to obtain regular reports from certain large retail groups covering all goods except food.

Mr. Moonman: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have had enough hard lessons in the last 12 months in the management of the economy not to recognise that many of the problems and complexities of consumer spending have created real problems in getting the information we want, and that his reply will only partially answer the needs and difficulties we are facing? Will he not go into detail as to whether this proposal might be possible in future?

Mr. Crosland: I would not dissent from my hon. Friend's opening remark, but nevertheless the inquiry I have announced will certainly give us up-to-date information on a sample basis of how the trend of retail sales is going.

Mr. Barnett: Can my right hon. Friend give us the most recent figures he has?

Mr. Crosland: The figures for April suggest that the consumer boom is over. They show that, as between March and April, there was a marked fall of sales and that, in April, retail sales as a whole were no higher than in the three months August to October, 1967.

Hotels (Tourist Accommodation)

Mr. Hunt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to assist the hotel industry to provide adequate accommodation for tourists in Great Britain, in view of the estimates of demand from 1970 onwards.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper (Cmnd. 3633) which my right hon. Friend presented to the House on 21st May.

Mr. Hunt: While the Government appear at last to be waking up to the potentiality of the tourist industry as a foreign exchange earner, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that the help now proposed is trivial compared with the withdrawal of investment allowances and the imposition of the S.E.T., which together are costing the hotel industry about £40 million a year?

Mr. Mallalieu: The help proposed now is remarkable in the prevailing conditions and has been generally welcomed.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Government measures to assist the industry are widely welcomed, particularly in the tourist areas? But could he not go still further to help the industry by trying to extend the tourist season so that we use our resources to a much greater extent in the early and late season than at present?

Mr. Mallalieu: We shall do what we can in that respect. This was one of the reasons for the change in the Bank Holidays. But a great deal can be done by the tourist areas themselves to extend their own seasons, and I would welcome that.

Mr. Blaker: In view of the shortage of hotel beds, and since the "Little Neddy" Report said that action by the Government was urgent, is it not unfortunate that the industry must wait until the next Session for legislation?

Mr. Mallalieu: Because of the publication of the White Paper, the industry knows what assistance will be available and can go ahead with making plans on that basis even before the legislation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that the hotel industry is greatly handicapped by discrimination in the application of the S.E.T.? Will he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to alleviating the burdens of the industry in that respect?

Mr. Mallalieu: The whole question of the effect of the S.E.T. is being examined now. Some hotels are benefiting from


discrimination in the application of the S.E.T.

Mr. Higgins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effects of the S.E.T. are not being examined now because the Government's Money Resolution on the Finance Bill is precluding any effective debate on the subject?

Mr. Mallalieu: Although the S.E.T. is not my direct responsibility, the fact is that we are examining its effect.

Invisible Earnings

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the recommendations of the Bland Report on Britain's Invisible Earnings have been implemented by the Government.

Mr. Crosland: I have already given the House details of some of the steps taken since the publication of the Bland Report, such as the references to invisible earnings in the presentation of the monthly trade figures, the help to the hotel industry to increase tourist earnings and the creation of the new permanent Committee on Invisible Exports.
The main task of this new Committee, on which my Department, the Treasury and the Bank of England are represented, will be to suggest and where possible implement measures to encourage invisible earnings in the light of the conclusions and recommendations of the Bland Report.

Mr. Baker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather disappointing that so little has been done at this stage as a result of the Bland Report? In particular, can he give urgency to the monthly or quarterly publication of invisible earnings, as these figures would possibly help to dissipate the gloom of our monthly trade figures?

Mr. Crosland: I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's opening remark. A good deal has been done since the Report came out. We now include a reference to the invisible account in the monthly trade figures and, of course, the quarterly figures for invisible accounts are regularly published. I am not clear that there is anything more we can do, but if the hon. Gentleman has any suggestion to make I will gladly consider it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Government persist in giving help of one sort or another to manufacturing industry and discriminating against those firms which contribute to invisible earnings, nothing the Government do or say about this will carry conviction?

Mr. Crosland: What will carry conviction, if not with the hon. Gentleman at any rate with objective observers, is that the first quarter's figures for invisible accounts will show a very marked increase.

Textiles (Imports)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures for the imports of yarn, cloth and made-up textiles for the first quarter of this year; and how these compare with the same period in the previous five years, making allowances for the effects of devaluation.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: As the Answer contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Because a number of other factors have influenced the level of imports, it is not practicable to isolate the effects of devaluation.

Mr. Howarth: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that I am concerned about the bunching of imports, which causes problems for particular sections of the industry? Will he consider taking steps to ensure an even spread of imports over the whole year?

Mr. Mallalieu: I take my hon. Friend's point. We have considered it, but there are great difficulties.

Sir Frank Pearson: Will the Minister accept that the fact that many small but efficient textile firms are closing down indicates that the level of imports under the quota is far too high? Can he say when he will be able to make a statement with regard to the quota position after 1970?

Mr. Mallalieu: We shall be in a better position to make decisions on that when we get the report on productivity from the Textile Council.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my hon. Friend recommend to his right hon. Friend


the Chancellor the imposition of revenue-raising import duties on Portuguese textiles, similar to those which they impose on our motor cars?

Mr. Mallalieu: I would certainly be prepared to pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend, but I would have thought that he would be in trouble in this direction with our international agreements.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can the Minister of State say, without going into the figures, whether devaluation has had a beneficial effect both on import and export figures compared with this time last year?

Mr. Mallalieu: Not so far, partly because of the very large restocking which has been taking place.

UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS


(including imports for process and re-export)




Yarn (a)

Cloth

Made-up*



Period January-March


(b)
(c)
Textiles(d)
Clothing




Million lb.
£ million (c.i.f.)
£ million sq. yds
£ million (c.i.f.
£ million lb.
£ million (c.i.f.)
£ million (c.i.f.)
£ million (c.i.f.)


1963
…
21·2
4·7
239·5
21·7
0·4
0·2
3·0
14·7


1964
…
23·7
6·6
259·6
25·5
0·3
0·2
3·3
19·7


1965
…
25·3
7·3
216·7
19·3
0·4
0·2
2·7
15·4


1966
…
28·7
8·2
305·0
27·3
0·6
0·3
4·1
17·0


1967
…
26·7
6·9
261·3
26·3
0·9
0·4
4·7
20·7


1968
…
32·8
10·1
342·6
33·8
1·1
0·6
6·1
28·4

Notes:

(a) Textile yarn and thread.

(b) Woven fabrics (excluding narrow fabrics) of cotton, silk, wool, linen, ramie, true hemp, jute, and man-made fibres.

(c) Woven fabrics (excluding narrow fabrics other than glass fibre fabrics) of other materials.

(d) Made-up articles wholly or mainly of textile materials (excluding special textile fabrics and related products, and tulle, lace, embroidery, ribbons, trimmings and other small wares). Clothing is not included.

* Quantities not available for all headings.

Design Centre (Air-Conditioning Plant)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a grant to the Design Centre for the installation of an air-conditioning plant there.

Mrs. Gwyneth Donwoody: The Design Centre already has an air-conditioning plant and part of the grant-in-aid has recently been spent on its maintenance. Possitde improvements and their cost are being discussed in the first instance be-

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Can the Minister say, on a small practical point, why the quotas cannot be on a quarterly basis?

Mr. Mallalieu: I understand that there are considerable difficulties with the trade. We have been having discussions with it for some time and the countries concerned, to see whether we can get round this. Perhaps we may be able to.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Can my hon. Friend say when we can expect the report from the Textile Council?

Mr. Mallalieu: Very soon, I hope—in the autumn. We have been having great difficulty with the weaving section of the industry, many parts of which have not so far filled in the questionnaire giving necessary details. We propose to twist their arms a bit.

Following is the information:

tween the Council and the Ministry of Public Building and Works.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Lady aware that the installation of a modern air-conditioning plant in the building would be a first-class advertisement for British design and engineering?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that it would. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that although in the previous five years less than £200 was spent on air conditioning, during 1961 to 1963 a cooling tower and seven cooling units were installed at a cost of £5,600.

North-East Development Council

Mr. Haseldine: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance has been given by his Department to the North-East Development Council in carrying out its policy of attracting industry from the Yorkshire and Humberside Region to the North-East.

Mr. Crosland: The North-East Development Council aims to attract industry into the North-East from many parts of Britain and from overseas. My regional office in Newcastle co-operates with the Council in bringing the merits of the area to the notice of firms seeking locations in development areas.

Mr. Haseldine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement is appreciated? Will he look favourably at any efforts that may be made in Yorkshire and Humberside or any part of the region, to attract industry, particularly to bring about more diversification?

Mr. Crosland: I have already made it clear that while I am strongly in favour of the North-East Development Council generally making propaganda for its area, I deprecate any attempt at competition between that development area on the one hand and parts of the Yorkshire and Humberside area on the other. This latter area has difficulties of its own.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that despite Government disapproval the North-East Development Council has indicated to at least one Halifax firm that it intends to continue its advertising campaign to attract industry away from the West Riding?

Mr. Crosland: I thought that we had made our views fairly clear on that point. If my hon. Friend will send me details I will be glad to look at them.

Rabbit Meat (Imports from China)

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of rabbits have been imported from China to date in 1968; and what percentage increase this represents on the same periods in 1966 and 1967.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Imports of rabbit meat from China were 1,135 tons

in January-April, 1968. This was the same as in January-April, 1966 and 1 per cent. less than in the same period of 1967.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Could the Minister tell us why we have to import so much? Are we that pushed? Would the hon. Lady please recognise that the import of this weight of rabbits from abroad affects the whole market and such revenue producers as the Welsh Marches Rabbit Producers' Society?

Mrs. Dunwoody: This is a serious question. We have told the industry that if it can produce prima facie evidence of dumping, and material injury we would be prepared to examine it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that all these rabbits are dead? Is there any danger of them breeding like Chinamen?

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not a fact that these Red rabbits are dearer than ordinary British chicken? What are they to be used for?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Speaking as a housewife, if anyone chooses to buy something more expensive than chicken, I assume that it is because they wish to eat rabbit.

Advance Factories

Mr. Younger: asked the President of the Board of Trade which completed advance factories are at present empty; and for how long each has been unoccupied.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I will, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Lady aware that all the information we have had recently shows that a number of these factories are still lying empty? Could she give some idea as to why it is proving impossible to build these factories quickly and provide more jobs?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It would be foolish to pretend that we are not disturbed by the number of empty advance factories— obviously we are. We are anxious to provide employment. That is why we built the factories. I am sure that the hon. Member will be pleased to know that there has been a sharp increase in the numbers allocated in the last quarter.


The figure was four in the fourth quarter of 1967, and it has now gone up to 10 for the first quarter of 1968. We believe that at long last we are getting somewhere.

Mr. Hannan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of us are delighted that such a large number of advance factories have been allocated to Scotland— 34 out of 94? Will she continue to look after the needs of Scotland?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We certainly intend to keep up, not just the allocation of advance factories, but a rolling programme to try to deal with the employment situation in Scotland.

Following is the information:


Location
Month and Year of Complection
No. of Months Vocant (as at 30th April, 1968)


ENGLAND


Teeside No. 1
November, 1966
17


Stanley No. 2
March, 1968
13


Sunderland No. 2
July, 1967
9


Ashington
July, 1967
9


Newburn
August, 1967
8


Blyth No. 2
January, 1968
3


Haltwhistle
April, 1968
1


SCOTLAND


Kirkcaldy
February, 1966
26


Port Glasgow
September, 1966
19


Inverness
November, 1966
17


Leven No. 1
February, 1967
14


Girvan
March, 1967
13


Aberdeen No. 1
July, 1967
9


Campbeltown
July, 1967
9


Sanquhar No. 2
October, 1967
6


Sanquhar No. 3
October, 1967
6


Douglas No. 1
November, 1967
5


Kilwinning No. 2
November, 1967
5


Falkirk
January, 1968
3


Harthill
April, 1968
1


WALES


Milford Haven


No. 2
January, 1967
15


Ammanford No. 1
June, 1967
10


Pwllheli
July, 1967
9


Fforestfach No. 1
September, 1967
7


Kenfig
November, 1967
5


Maesteg No. 1
November, 1967
5


Ynyscedwyn No. 2
November, 1967
5


Maesteg No. 3
December, 1967
4


Merthyr Tydfil


No. 2
December, 1967
4

Overseas Investment

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, as interests, profits and dividends in 1966 earned this country a net surplus of £371 million, he will take steps to ensure that the growth in income from our overseas

investments is fully maintained by allowing free movement of British capital into overseas investment.

Mr. Crosland: I am very conscious of the benefits which earnings from interest, profits and dividends bring to the balance of payments on current account, but as my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget speech, we must maintain the measures we have taken to minimise the burden of outward investment on the balance of payments capital account.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the Minister aware that it is commonplace for American firms which have invested money in this country to take out, in profits and royalties, 100 per cent. per annum? Is it really necessary that British enterprise should be deprived of corresponding opportunities overseas?

Mr. Crosland: Under present circumstances it is necessary. This is always a question of trying to find the right balance between the individual long-term benefits to be gained from overseas investments on the one hand, and on the other hand the burden that that places in the short term on the capital part of the balance of payments programme. In our present situation it seems absolutely right not to cut it down to zero, which we have not done, but to exercise a certain restraint.

Mr. Cant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, on both sides of the Gangway, who are increasingly concerned about the institutional changes in the City which are increasing the pressures on sterling? Would he particularly look at the whole question of the export of capital to the sterling area, and leakages taking place in the non-sterling area?

Mr. Crosland: The question of exchange control is for the Chancellor. I can tell my hon. Friend that in 1967, for the first time for many years, the long-term capital account was actually in balance.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the growth of this valuable help to the balance of payments in future is being very much handicapped by the discriminatory provisions of the so-called voluntary


arrangement, which largely prevents investment in Australia, where investment possibilities are better than anywhere in the world?

Mr. Crosland: They have not altogether prevented investment in Australia, as one can see from recent figures. If one has control or restraint of this kind, it seems better that it should be discriminatory.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even £370 million may be a high price to pay for the wild speculative capital movements that have taken place recently and damaged sterling?

Mr. Crosland: The question of speculative movements is an extremely serious one. But it is not the same as the matter of long-term capital investment overseas, to which the Question relates.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Crosland to answer Question No. 65.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

Aldergrove Airport

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost since devaluation of extending each of the two runways, respectively, of Aldergrove Airport in County Antrim; and if he will start preliminary work to extend the runways in order to make them suitable for transatlantic jet traffic.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The cost of bringing the main runway to a standard comparable with that, say, at Prestwick would be about £2 million. An extension to this runway is under consideration. We cannot foresee any need at present to extend the secondary runway and no estimate is therefore available.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that B.O.A.C. has started now to fly from Aldergrove and, in the interests of safety, would it not be wise to start plans for an extension of at least one runway?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think that safety comes into it as a result of the new flights by B.O.A.C. But we shall

gain experience of what the traffic is likely to be and, in the light of that, we may reconsider our decision.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the President of the Board of Trade when and on what terms will Aldergrove Civil Airport in County Antrim be transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The airport cannot be transferred until the Government of Northern Ireland has obtained the necessary legal powers. The Civil Aviation Bill now in Committee will enable the Northern Ireland Parliament to confer such powers and I understand that a Bill for this purpose is in preparation at Stormont. The date and terms of transfer will be discussed between the two Governments as soon as sufficient progress has been made with the draft legislation.

Sir Knox Cunningham: As this legislation now appears imminent, can the hon. Gentleman not give a little more information about the terms, financial and otherwise, on which the transfer will be made?

Mr. Mallalieu: Not so far. It will depend in part upon the type of organisation that the Northern Ireland Government want to run this airport when it takes over.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that, so far, we have not reached that part of the Bill, and is my hon. Friend assuming, perhaps correctly, that the Committee will agree to the proposals?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sure that I should be out of order in discussing the proceedings of the Committee in question.

A300 Airbus

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his revised estimate of the date of entry into service with British European Airways of the A300 Airbus.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the A300 Airbus will be the most suitable next generation aircraft for British European Airways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: B.E.A. will certainly have a requirement in the mid-1970s for an aircraft with the characteristics of the A300 airbus, but until the specification and other particulars are available B.E.A. obviously cannot be more precise. For planning purposes the aircraft has been assumed to be in B.E.A.s fleet in or by 1975.

Mr. Onslow: Are the Government still sticking to their original timetable for a decision to go ahead in July this year? How much is the R. and D. likely to be on the aircraft? How much does the hon. Gentleman expect each airbus to cost?

Mr. Mallalieu: Questions about the development of the airbus are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware that Boeing is now to build a direct competitor to the A300 airbus? Will he ensure that the A300 is exactly in line with B.E.A.'s requirements so that the airline is not once again saddled with a second-best aeroplane delivered too late for its purposes?

Mr. Mallalieu: B.E.A. and other international lines—Lufthansa and Air France—are getting out what they consider to be the ideal specifications for their requirements. I hope that the airbus will meet them.

Mr. Lubbock: Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to the Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology about his recent visit to Boeing in the United States and the possibility of co-operation with Boeing which was mentioned during that visit? Will he make a statement on the effect of this on B.E.A.s procurement plans?

Mr. Mallalieu: I have not had the opportunity of consulting my hon. Friend or hearing about his experiences there, but I shall very much welcome the chance, and shall take it.

London Airport (Aircraft Monitoring)

Mr. Barnes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what decision he has reached regarding the installation of improved equipment at London Airport for monitoring the height of arriving aircraft.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The provision and operation of this equipment would be very costly and I am arranging for a special radar study this summer of heights flown by aircraft approaching Heathrow to assess the need for improved monitoring.

Mr. Barnes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is the time of year when the problem of aircraft noise becomes very intense and that many people living under the glide path are convinced that there are many more infringements by arriving aircraft than are detected by the very small sample which is monitored at the moment?

Mr. Mallalieu: This is the point of the special survey we are to carry out this summer.

Air Safety

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to implement the findings of his Departmental inquiry into air safety matters.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: As my right hon. Friend has already told the House, the Report of the Special Safety Review contains a variety of findings which call for study and action by a number of different persons, including operators. We have already acted on a number of the recommendations which most directly concern the Board of Trade, including those about reorganisation within the Board. We are studying the other recommendations.

Mr. Onslow: What action is the Board of Trade taking to strengthen its staff on the air safety side, possibly by economising elsewhere? Are we likely to be able to have a full debate on this before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Mallalieu: I should certainly be prepared to consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the last point. We are already increasing the numbers of flight operations inspectors, flight examiners and so on, and we are getting very near our proper complement.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my hon. Friend having a close look at the working conditions of cabin staff of aircraft?


Apparently various health hazards are involved which could affect safety matters.

Mr. Mallalieu: Some of these points were brought out in the Review. We are looking at them very closely.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the hon. Gentleman any information about possible mergers among the smaller independents, a point which was brought out in the Report?

Mr. Mallalieu: Not so far, Sir.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was disappointed with his answer to my suggestion that the first step he might take is to call a conference of all operators to discuss the Report? Will he reconsider his decision and consider calling an early conference of all the people very closely involved?

Mr. Mallalieu: I shall certainly look at that again.

British Airlines (Financial Information)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the new Civil Aviation Series of the Board of Trade Business Monitor does not give the financial information about British airlines required by Article 67 of the Chicago Convention to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Article 67 of the Chicago Convention relates solely to the filing of information with the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and not to the release of information in Government publications, which is determined primarily by domestic requirements.

Mr. Fortescue: I know, but will not the hon. Gentleman instruct B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to give a lead in this matter by supplying the information we have pledged ourselves to give to the International Civil Aviation Organisation? If the two Corporations start to supply this information, the independent airlines will be willing to follow their example.

Mr. Mallalieu: B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. do supply this information and it is the independents which do not. We are in

consultation with the independents now to secure the information.

Mr. Onslow: Why has the hon. Gentleman in any case allowed the Business Monitor to revise its statistics so that what is published now is less valuable than what was published before?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not accept that the statistics are less valuable, but we do not want to duplicate publication.

BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION (CHAIRMAN)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. RANKIN: TO ask the President of the Board of Trade, what plans he has for dealing with the impending vacancy in the chairmanship of the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and what condition at the same time he proposes to give to the creation of a single corporation to deal with national and international airways operations.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 65.
As the House will know, I expect to receive by about March of next year, the report of the Edwards Committee on the structure of the civil air transport industry. I have, therefore, been considering, and have discussed with the chairmen of both Air Corporations, the best course to adopt in making and renewing appointments to the boards of the Corporations during the period before and immediately after the Committee has reported.
I cannot, of course, forecast what conclusions the Committee may reach, but I must allow for the possibility that it may suggest changes which affect the composition of these boards. I must clearly also allow adequate tune for considering and debating the report before changes have to be made.
In these circumstances, I have decided to make no avoidable changes in the composition of the boards before the end of 1969. I am accordingly inviting all those at present serving on the boards, whose appointments will expire before that date, to agree to continue until the end of that year.
In the case of B.E.A., Sir Anthony Milward has agreed to an extension of his term of appointment as Chairman until that date. In the case of B.O.A.C., I knew already that Sir Giles Guthrie wished to leave B.O.A.C. when his present term of office expires at the end of this year. I asked him to consider accepting reappointment until the end of 1969, but he told me that he has committed himself to another task early in 1969.
I have, therefore, invited Mr. Charles Hardie, the part-time Deputy Chairman, to serve as part-time Chairman for the year 1969, and he has agreed. Mr. Keith Granville will retain his position as full-time Deputy Chairman and will, in addition, be appointed by the Corporation as Managing Director.
These arrangements will ensure continuity and leave the Corporations in good hands during this period.
After consulting the Chairman of the Air Transport Licensing Board, I have decided to adopt the same policy in relation to that Board. Sir Daniel Jack has agreed to continue as Chairman until the end of 1969. I propose to strengthen the Board by appointing one or two additional members for a like period.

Mr. Rankin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very full Answer and assure him that it has my complete support.
Will he answer two particular points? He has indicated that Mr. Charles Hardie will be the part-time Chairman of B.O.A.C. for a period ahead. Can he assure us that Mr. Hardie will sever active participation with the 40 companies with which he is presently connected in order to devote full-time attention to the very important appointment he is getting?
Secondly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be reasonably brief.

Mr. Rankin: Secondly, on the question of amalgamation, will my right hon. Friend assure us that, whatever the Edwards Committee may say, he will give full attention to considering the need for merging B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. into one corporation, which I hope will be called the British Air Transport Corporation?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks.
I have not invited Mr. Hardie to be the full-time Chairman of the Corporation, but part-time Chairman. Therefore, it is no concern of mine to ask him to surrender other appointments which he may have, whether public or private. My concern is to make sure, and he has assured me, that he will give the time I have asked him to give to the affairs of the Corporation.
As to amalgamation, I will make no statement until I know what the Edwards Committee has to say about it, because it is one of the main issues that it was set up to consider.

Mr. A. Royle: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that Mr. Hardie is highly regarded, and that his appointment will be warmly welcomed by all who are interested in aviation?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also pay tribute to the fine work that Sir Giles Guthrie has done for B.O.A.C. over many years, a tribute which I know that all on this side wish to pay?

Mr. Crosland: I should like to echo the tribute which the hon. Gentleman has paid to Sir Giles Guthrie, a tribute in every way justified by his record with the Corporation.
I must make it clear, in the light of one or two remarks I hear from behind, that Mr. Hardie is a most distinguished public servant who has given a great deal of time not only to B.O.A.C, but, as I know from a constituency point of view, to the White Fish Authority. Any notion that he is other than a most devoted public servant is quite wrong.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: No one is trying to denigrate Mr. Hardie. There are hundreds of good public servants who give good public service, but many of them do not get big salaries for part-time employment. All we want to know is the time that the Minister suggests he should give to this part-time employment and what his salary will be.

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend did not ask that before.

Mr. Lewis: I did.

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend asked from a sitting position. I have asked Mr. Hardie to give half his time to this position. He will, therefore, be paid half


the normal salary for the chairman of the Board, namely, £5,500 per year.

Mr. Onslow: Is the Minister aware that there are important matters concerning B.O.A.C. which cannot and must not wait, in the period of continuing uncertainty, relating to industrial relations? Is he satisfied that the uncertainty will not make it more difficult to get good industrial relations in B.O.A.C?

Mr. Crosland: The matter of industrial relations in B.O.A.C. is particularly urgent, notably in the light of what the Pearson Report said on the subject of uncertainty. I am aware that there is some inevitable uncertainty, because the Edwards Committee is sitting, and is known to be sitting. This is unavoidable. However, I hope that the appointments which I have announced, providing, as they do, for continuity of management within the Corporation, will reduce that uncertainly to the greatest possible extent.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has not made up his mind about the amalgamation of the two Corporations? There are mixed feelings whether this would be a desirable thing.

Mr. Crosland: I can give an absolute assurance that I have not made up my mind. I have no intentiton of making it up until I know what the Edwards Committee has to say.

Mr. Fortescue: In view of the almost complete breakdown of communication between the pilots and management of B.O.A.C, is the right hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that a chartered accountant, however distinguished and valuable a public servant, is really the right part-time appointment to make at this juncture?

Mr. Crosland: I have made this appointment partly because I think that the gentleman concerned is the right man for the job and partly for the reasons I have explained in my Answer, namely, that the Edwards Committee's report will be available in March next year and I did not want to be faced with a situation in which, just as the Edwards Committee report came out, we had three new full-time chairmen of the three Boards I have been discussing. In the light of that, I am certain that this is the right appointment.

Mr. Cronin: While there may be good reasons for the interim appointment of Mr. Hardie as part-time Chairman of B.O.A.C, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be a most undesirable precedent for chairmen of nationalised Corporations to be part-time?

Mr. Crosland: There is no sense in which this could become a precedent, because I have made it clear that, after the Edwards Committee has reported, we shall all have to take a view about the long-term nature of the boards running these Corporations. This sets no precedent for the future after we have the Edwards Committee's report.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would be wrong to commit himself to irrevocable decisions about the structure of B.O.A.C. now without having the report of the Edwards Committee and that he is right to resist attempts made from both sides to tie his hands?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I wholly agree with what he has said.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [28th May], on consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Which Amendment was: No. 265, in page 94, line 34, at end insert—
(4) A journey shall not be a controlled Journey for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section if theer are no railway lines which could undertake any part of that journey.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have again posted up my selections. There is one change only. I understand that this morning we were debating Amendment No. 265 and with it Amendments Nos. 266, 267 and 272.
Amendment No. 265 had been moved by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and was being debated. Mr. Buchanan-Smith.

Mr. Alec Buchanan-Smith: Mr. Alec Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns) rose—

Mr. James Davidson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking this morning.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was interrupted.

Mr. Davidson: I was addressing my remarks, in particular, to Amendment No. 272, which is included in this group, which says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the carriage by road of any article or articles which by reasons of weight or size are certified by the Railways Board as being unsuitable for transporting by rail.
I had been pointing out that certain articles are exceedingly unsuitable for transport by rail and expressing the hope that the Minister would give us some idea of the kind of instructions he will be issuing on this particular matter. I also hoped that in certain cases manufacturers would not be obliged to send by rail articles of particular value.
I would like to cite the case of a textile mill which dispatches very valuable high-quality knitwear. The firm used to send all its dispatch by rail, but it has stopped doing so following a whole series of pilfering incidents. The mill found it was losing so much of its goods on British Railways that it eventually withdrew all its traffic from the railway and has since sent by road.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Davidson: I hope that until proper measures can be taken to prevent any such pilfering or alternatively to ensure that any losses are fully recompensed, no firms will be obliged to send goods by rail if it is more convenient and more economical to send them by road.

Mr. Manuel: I reject the hon. Member's attempt to malign railway workers by his allegation about pilfering. Is he aware that even whole lorries go missing when travelling by road and very often this blame could be laid on forces outside railway workers altogether?

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Davidson rose—

Mr. Manuel: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me and he must take his medicine.
Is he aware that goods now sent by knitwear firms would be container traffic, and would be loaded from door to door and on to rail with no possibility of pilfering by railwaymen or anyone else, since the goods would be in sealed containers? The hon. Gentleman is talking of something that happened 20 years ago. He is completely out of date and does not know anything about railway working.

Mr. Davidson: I would like to reply to the allegations made against me.

Mr. Speaker: We are on Report stage and the hon. Gentleman can only make one speech on it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The kind of medicine supplied by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is very much the kind we expect and have been treated to many times during the course of the year.
I support the Amendment and wish to raise a specific point which affects farmers


and particularly fruit and flower growers. As the Under-Secretary knows, I have raised this matter with him and it has been raised in direct representations. Perhaps I could have his attention. I see that he is now leaving. I am sure that the Minister of State, who previously dealt with this as Parliamentary Secretary and who has since been elevated to the office of Minister of State, will have full knowledge of the representations which were made. These matters were raised by Perth and Angus fruit growers, who made direct representations to the Minister of Transport. I followed the matter up at Question Time some weeks ago.
There is very genuine concern among farmers and particularly among potato, fruit and flower growers, about the effect of the Bill in relation to the use they make of the railways. They are very happy to use the railways when they get correct service. Unfortunately, there have been one or two unhappy experiences recently, particularly in relation to potatoes, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perth (Mr. MacArthur), will also have had experience, where, because of the good rates quoted by British Railways, farmers consigned seed potatoes to England by rail only to find that British Railways did not have sufficient wagons to cope with the trade.
I use that example as showing that where the railways are prepared to offer a commercial competitive service there is no prejudice among people against using British Railways and that where there is a perfectly fair and commercial proposition farmers and fruit growers are prepared to use British Railways' services. But recently, in relation to seed potatoes—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must make his comments to the Amendment within certain specified limitations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am using the example to illustrate to hon. Members opposite, who sometimes criticise us for being prejudiced people in this regard, which we are not, that there is a genuine desire to use British Railways where the service is right.
The problem I particularly want to raise relates to areas where stations have

been closed, and this refers directly to Amendment 265. In my area we have a main railway line which passes through an area where a number of stations have been closed so that the number of points to which farmers can take seed potatoes, fruit and flowers for dispatch by rail are much more limited. They may have to go a considerably greater distance in carrying produce to the rail head.
Until now, in certain places they have been able to use ordinary farm tractors and trailers to take their goods direct to the station but now that certain stations are closed and other depots have been set up at a greater distance it is not practicable for them to use such forms of farm transport to take their goods to the rail head. This may mean that they have to acquire a lorry if they are to use the railways or may have to have their goods handled by a third party, through another contractor or by British Railways lorries. This introduces a completely fresh operation into their work in consigning goods to market.
I would like to ask the Minister of State, therefore, what is the position where this situation exists, even though there is a main railway line available and there are depots within reasonable distance to which farmers can take their produce? What happens if, in future, it is to be inconvenient to them to do so and they are unable to use their own farm transport in the form of tractors? Will they still have to send their produce by rail, or will they be able just as easily to use road transport for the whole journey in place of the railways? This is a genuine problem which has arisen and there have been representations on it by many people. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say on this Amendment.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I intervene only briefly to seek clarification on a point on broken journeys which are partly over water. I appreciate that on the proposals for the exclusion of certain areas we have the Minister's wording:
The carriage of goods within and between offshore islands having no rail connection with the mainland
This would include all the Scottish islands and the Isle of Wight, but would exclude Anglesey and the Isle of Sheppey. I


believe that this is in order, Mr. Speaker, but I have some slight doubts about it.

Mr. Speaker: I have not interrupted the hon. Gentleman yet.

Mr. MacMillan: The question I wish to ask is whether in this exclusion we are limited to within and between offshore islands. I would have liked to see the words "to and from" offshore islands. We have had a lot of debate on this point. I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee, but early in the history of the Bill I had correspondence with the previous Minister and discussions with a number of Ministries; and it has never been made clear whether this is meant as referring to a physical rail connection with the mainland. Clarification would be helpful.
"Journeys" would have to include those from the mainland to the island and vice versa. I know of loads starting on Stornoway in the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, travelling 35 miles to the ferry point in Tarbert on the same island and then crossing 35 miles of water by MacBrayne's ferry, which will be virtually a State service in future. They then have to cross the Isle of Skye for 55 miles, then go on the ferry from Kyle Akin to the Kyle of Lochalsh. Then, for the first time they meet the railway. This is what I mean by the broken journey.
It is clear that journeys on the islands, between them and among them, are completely excluded, but we would like to know that this will cover something more than a physical rail connection by bridge. This should be precisely stated to relieve many doubts in the Islands.
The people there are concerned, too, in the carriage of considerable loads on MacBrayne's ferries. I understand from the company that loads of 21 or 22 tons can be and are carried. It is doubly important because, by reason of the distances, the cost of living is affected by every use of transport. If one had to break down from road to rail transport on these journeys, that could be economically disastrous for the people and the communities concerned.
I hope that the Minister can give a clear answer. I have discussed this many times in correspondence with his colleagues. There are already sufficient

complications for the occasionally appalling service which we get from MacBrayne's in the carriage of goods. I am not talking about passenger or private car carriage but when it comes to carriage of goods from other parts of the country from Leith, Glasgow or England to Stornaway, we often have the utmost difficulty in getting deliveries or even getting assurances about deliveries. There is enough discontent and reason for it now without complicating it unduly by the imposition of further uneconomic burdens on an area which already suffers these considerable burdens.
If I can have an assurance on these matters, most people would be satisfied that the Bill as a whole is excellent in its general application and purpose.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to say whether or not it is an excellent Bill.

Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was emphasising that this is the main complaint which relates to my constituency. Otherwise, I have not received a single complaint from my constituency—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] It is absolutely true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not doubt this. I should like to have the assurance which I have sought.

Mr. John Wells: I follow the point of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about the horticultural trades, but, to a limited extent, I take issue with him. The horticultural trades in Scotland use the railways wherever possible because a long haul suits them, but the pattern of English horticulture is tending to move away from places near rail centres and has been based largely on two factors. The first is the delivery to the main markets by road and the second is the move to coastal areas, where they have the maximum light efficiency, following the Dutch example.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in a previous debate, touched on the lack of prosperity which would result for his horticultural constituents if the Bill were forced through un-amended. I draw the Minister's attention to the horticultural point of view as



affected by Amendment No. 266, which says that a journey should not be a controlled journey if the distance of the starting point and the destination from railway terminals means a difficult journey.
The Covent Garden Market and the other main markets which are supported by the Government through the Ministry of Agriculture have no rail terminal facilities. I am aware that the new, much delayed, market at Nine Elms will have rail facilities, but they will be primarily from the coast and will, therefore, help the importer rather than the British horticulturist. If the Minister does not accept these Amendments, or at least No. 266, he will seriously affect the price of all British fruit and vegetables.
Flowers are another matter, since they could be called a luxury, but they are gaining popularity. Without falling into the error of the hon. Member for West Lothian ('Mr. Dalyell), I can say that there has been much evidence before the Select Committee on Agriculture's Sub-Committee to the effect that road transport is the key to marketing. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will sympathetically consider the effect of this provision on the price of vegetables and fruit.
Amendment No. 272 contains the phrase, "by reasons of weight or size". I hope that that will be interpreted to mean small as well as large, since many consignments of flowers may be fairly bulky, although light, and unsuitable for rail transport. I hope that the Amendments will be accepted or that, in another place, a similar concept can be written into the Bill, even at that late stage.
Another point on Amendment No. 272 is that the high-quality paper industry, of which there are a number of mills in my constituency, is totally unwilling to consign high quality papers by rail because of the damage and dirt which results. I heard what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said in riposte to the hon. Member for Aber-deenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), but even now, in 1968, the mills are not prepared to send high quality paper by rail, because if one sheet in a consignment is damaged, the whole lot is damaged. I therefore hope that high quality goods will not be forced on to

the railways, which are unsuitable for them.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: That would come within the container wrapping services. The railways would not be interested in traffic such as knitwear goods.

Mr. Wells: They are interested. The mills in my constituency have consigned these goods to them and have regretted it. They do not want to do it again. Therefore, I hope that there will be no compulsion brought to bear by the Minister of State.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: This group of Amendments have a superficial attraction which did not characterise the previous Amendment dealing with a similar point. The attractiveness and logic stem from the exception which the Government have already made in the case of the islands. One agrees that there should be a geographical criterion of this kind applied, and the scope for obtaining this attraction is almost limitless.
In the case of my own constituency which was canvassed during the Committee stage, there has been an argument advanced by the Highlands and Islands Development Board that a geographical exception should be made on the lines of Amendment 267. As there was not a full opportuntiy to answer the case that has been made by the Highlands and Islands Development Board at an earlier stage of this Bill for a geographical exception along those lines, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportuntiy provided by this short debate to set at rest any remaining fears which there may be of the effect of the quantity licensing provisions upon those parts of the country which are remote from rail heads.
It seems to me clear that the provisions in the later Section 70 establish the criteria on which objections will be upheld, and completely set at rest any fears that the important industries in those areas, particularly the fishing industry, will be put at some disadvantage by virtue of the quantity licensing provisions.
It is clear that in the case of ports situated more than 30 miles from a rail head it will be impossible for British



Railways to establish that even if they were not interested in doing so, which is inconceivable in the light of British Railways in this field. It would be impossible for them to establish that it was not to the advantage of the consigner.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with my suggestion in Amendment No. 265, which I moved, that in these circumstances it would be best to relieve such business from the procedure of an application and waiting for the answer if such applications are always to be granted?

Mr. Maclennan: If applications are always to be granted automatically—and presumably the hon. Gentleman assumes that this is so—this is a fact which businesses will take into account and plan accordingly.
The disadvantages of accepting the geographical principle are that it would still require evaluation of the facts by some body, whether it be the Minister or the licensing authority, to determine whether or not, in the circumstances, the applicant came within the geographical limitation. Consequently, I cannot see that any time would be saved, as it would have to establish that it fell within the scope of the exception referred to in the Amendments.
These points have all be elaborately debated earlier, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to make it clear beyond peradventure that industries established in remoter parts will not be disadvantaged because of objection by British Railways or any other authority to the issue of quantity licensing.

Mr. Peter Mills: On Amendment No. 265, we in the South-West, particularly in the remoter areas, are in a dilemma. Many people who produce milk and meat would like to send them by rail, but it is not always possible as large areas of North and West Devon and North Cornwall are without any rail heads. Therefore, it is difficult for them, as I believe would be right, to transfer some of their heavy loads on to the railways.
In the past, when it has been possible to send milk and meat by rail, the general

service given by the railways has been sadly lacking, which is one reason why people have gone away from this form of transport. It is extraordinary that while there is a desire to transfer some heavy loads back to the railways again, at the moment coal and clay are being allowed in, but we cannot send milk and meat out. It is extraordinary that British Railways have liner trains, even in our area, to bring in coal and clay, but we cannot send out milk or meat. It is just one-way traffic. This shows some fault with British Railways and the service they are giving.
It seems to me that this Amendment is entirely right. In the very remote areas in which some of us live it is not possible to carry out what one would like to do. I support this Amendment.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I hope that the Minister will look at these Amendments sympathetically. I would ask him especially to consider the position in Scotland, where real problems of distance confront many small enterprises in remote areas. I have several industries and trades in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and other hon. Members have spoken about the difficulties which confront the soft-fruit industry. In my constituency, I have a substantial raspberry-growing industry, which, at present, makes substantial use of the railways.
The industry spreads into the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus and other neighbouring constituencies, and there use is made of the Strathmore railway line. The passenger service has been closed down and I assume that the freight service is under a cloud, also. What would be the position under this Clause if the railway service were to be withdrawn? I trust that the Minister will bear matters of this kind in mind when considering the Amendment.
This type of business is one which is very susceptible to climate and delay. In the case of a highly-perishable product, if there is any delay at all markets will be lost and the consignments could well be ruined. I tremble to think of the delays which would accompany the bureaucratic procedures which this Clause introduces.
Similar difficulties would apply to the seed potato trade, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) mentioned. Seed potato growers have made enormous use of the railway service, as the managers were most helpful to them. Here again, the local railway line is under threat. What will their position be under the Clause if the Amendment is not accepted?
An alternative means of transport must be available for the potato trade. There must be a choice, because often potato traders have found that, through no fault of the local railway organisataion, the wagons they require for the dispatch of seed potatoes have not been available because of a muddle or confusion further down the line. Wagons were not available because of, for example, the London dock strike, for which the railway authorities can hardly be blamed.
If a seed potato merchant finds that wagons are not available, he must, under the Clause without the Amendment, go through the procedure of writing to the road licensing authority to get special authorisation to dispatch his consignment of potatoes by road—this probably at a time of the year when they are susceptible to frost damage. How long will this cumbersome, bureaucratic procedure take to complete?
What will be the position of a small building contractor such as one in my constituency who carries out many small building projects throughout Scotland and sends his materials by road? Will he be obliged to use the railways? He would escape the imposition of the Clause as drafted if the Amendment were accepted. What will be the position of special loads? I recently wrote to the Minister about the transportation of caravans. A firm in my constituency despatches caravans to various parts of the country on large trailers. It is clear that this is not the type of load for the railways, and I assume that the firm would escape the provision. I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance on the matter.
What concerns my constituents as much as anything is the problem that they will face if they are in country districts some way removed from a rail head and are obliged to use the railways. What will happen if they discover that the railway

service is denied them by the removal of the line, or by the non-appearance of wagons and they are forced to use road traffic, which is the only alternative? This is particularly worrying for those dealing with perishable items or goods which are susceptible to climatic damage, such as seed potatoes. Is the Minister suggesting that people in this position should go through the bureaucratic procedure of writing in for special dispensation to allow them to send their crops by the most obvious means of transport? Is he suggesting that this should be done when delays might occur which might damage those crops by the time the authorisation comes through?

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Some hon. Members, particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, are over-fearful about British Railways trying to take over traffic which they cannot carry. It is estimated that the railways can carry 33 per cent. more than they are at present carrying, more efficiently and more cheaply than road transport. This is an enormous increase. It is foolish to assume that the railways will try to capture traffic which they cannot adequately handle, particularly since they can expect to increase their carrying capacity, anyway. It is obvious that the railways will go after that traffic which they are most capable of handling profitably.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Amendment is designed to cover situations where no railways are able to undertake the work?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Atkins: That would be an obvious example of traffic which is unsuitable for the railways. It is wrong to assume that the railways will want such traffic, or that the licensing authorities will grant it to the railways. After all, are there not a number of safeguards in the Bill? Consider the case of an area which is remote from the railhead.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Atkins: I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to say a few words without interruption. After all, who was responsible for getting rid of railway lines?

Mr. Manuel: Beeching.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The


Strathmore line, to which I referred, lost its passenger service as a direct result of action taken by the present Government. Moreover, at the last General Election, the Minister of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have much to debate. Beeching does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Atkins: I must reply to that intervention and answer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacArthur: It is unanswerable.

Mr. Atkins: The running down of the railway services—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whoever ran down the railways, if they are run down, does not arise on this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) had been present during our earlier debates, he would have heard the answer to his question.
I was referring to areas which are remote from railheads. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have assumed that, in those circumstances, the railways will not be able to provide an adequate collection and delivery service. Perhaps they will not want to, or perhaps the licensing authority will not want them to. There have been several cases where the railways have rejected traffic of this kind and there have been complaints from farmers as a result of that rejection. In many parts of the country, and particularly in rural areas, farmers send what suits them by road—the profitable stuff—and the rest by rail. It is rather like comparing potatoes with raspberries. Many cases of this kind have occurred in East Anglia.
It should be remembered that the railways are able to provide collection and delivery services. It is interesting to note that when these services have been provided a much more comprehensive system of railway freight, collected and delivered, has been established. There is often a great improvement in the services provided by the railways because of the concentration of goods depots, and this makes for speedy collection and delivery.
I regret that many Opposition Amendments appear to have been tabled with the idea of weakening the principle of

the Bill. I regret it because the principle is the excellent one of improving our transport system. Almost without exception, every Opposition Amendment has not been constructive, but has merely been designed to denigrate this excellent principle. I hope that eventually hon. Gentleman opposite will realise that what the Government are proposing is the only way to put the country's transport system right.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I hope that the Minister, in considering the Amendments, will give an assurance about highly perishable produce. In horticulture, the time factor is vital. A delay of 24 hours may mean that a crop is completely unsuitable for the market. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) strawberries are grown, which, if they are delayed even for a few hours, lose the top-quality market. However willing the railway manager, and however zealous the railways may be to give a good service, once perishable produce is left at the railhead, no control remains, and delay will result in damage.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, we are not seeking to control traffic because of perishable goods. The hon. Member must link his argument to the Amendment which, as he knows, depends on whether there is a railway and how far away it is.

Mr. Hill: Timing determines whether or not the railway can be practicable. Even if freightliners are running, they may be useless for certain perishable produce if the timing of the dispatch has to be shorter than the notice of 48 hours which British Railways require for the freightliner service. I hope that the Minister will take into account that if existing road haulage businesses are destroyed, and the railways fail to handle the traffic, there will be no transport at all for perishable produce.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I have been shocked by what I have heard from the benches opposite. It bears no relation to the kind of produce with which we ought to be dealing. The sentiments which have been echoed followed closely along the lines of the campaign which has been conducted by the Road Haulage Association. I intend to take some of the references that have


been made by hon. Gentlemen with exactly the same degree of seriousness as I have taken the campaign—which is none at all.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite want freedom to use the railways when nothing else is available. They wish to have the railways standing by in case their road haulier friends are unable to provide services. The argument is, "Let us have the railways as a common carrier. We do not like them normally, because they happen to be 40 miles away, but we would like them to remain as a fall-back." I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for South Argus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), say this morning that he wished to see a railway line in his constituency closed down.
Hon. Gentlemen know from assurances which have been given in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House during and before the Report stage that, in the areas referred to in the Amendments, the British Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation will not be interested in the largest part of the traffic. They will not have collection and delivery facilities, and they will not be able to carry horticultural produce. My own experience in handling horticultural produce from the Vale of Evesham is that, because of the inability of British Railways and the National Freight Corporation to handle this kind of traffic, they will not show any interest in doing so. Fruit, vegetables and horticultural produce involve small pick-ups and drops, which make it unsuited for the Railways Board or the Corporation.
Apart from this, the hon. Gentlemen cannot even put down the Amendment properly. If they seriously wanted to exclude that kind of traffic, 40 miles is a very bad limit. In parts of Kent, Bedfordshire, the Vale of Evesham, and even in Cornwall, horticultural and agricultural produce is grown within 40 miles from the rail terminal.
Hon. Gentlemen are asking to have the railways as a standby. They know, that if they can keep the railways open in the event of ice and snow, then they can blame the railways for making losses. For these reasons, I urge rejection of the Amendments.

Mr. John Hynd: I would not have intervened and taken up time on this part of the Bill but for the fact that a considerable amount of

time is being wasted on the other side by Amendments which are completely irrelevant. The Amendments deal with whether there is a railway line, the distance of the starting point and unsuitability.
The Opposition have made great play about the shortage of time to deal with vital aspects of the Bill, but they must be aware that all these points are already covered by the Bill. The Bill provides that there is nothing to hinder a road haulier from taking any of this traffic at any time unless the railways object and ask for the traffic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has said, the railways are not likely to look for traffic which they cannot suitably carry and which it will be difficult for them to carry in a reasonable manner.
It is clear from Clause 70 (3) and (4) that, even if they did object, they would not get the traffic because the conditions which are mentioned in the Amendments make it unsuitable for carriage by rail. The railway authorities, under the provisions of subsections (3) and (4), could not satisfy the licensing authority that they could, with the disadvantages of the mileage, the non-existence of the railway station, and so on, carry the goods equally well, at greater speed and efficiency or at less cost. I wonder what all the argument has been about.
One or two minor points have been raised which are worthy of answer by the Minister, but if the Opposition intend to insist on taking up as much time on a matter which has no effect at all as they have so far—

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman accusing us of wasting time? May I point out to him that one more hon. Member has spoken from the benches opposite than from this side of the House?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, and I am the one, and I rose only to protest that the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the shortage of time are quite unreal, in view of their tactics.
The only point which may have any significance comes in Amendment No. 267, which refers to a starting point or a destination more than 40 miles distant


from the rail terminals. That could give rise to considerable anomalies. There might be a point which was 39¾ miles from a terminal, and I can imagine the questions and accusations which would come from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Minister drawing lines within a quarter of a mile to conform to an Amendment which they themselves have put down.
Surely it would be better to stand by the provisions of the Bill and leave it to the traffic commissioners to decide, in the light of the circumstances prevailing, whether 40, 30, or even 50 miles was the more satisfactory distance. I would have thought that that was a much more reasonable and sensible way of dealing with the point than putting a definitive mileage in the Bill.
For those reasons, I hope that, after the Minister has dealt with the local points which have been raised, all these Amendments will be rejected.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): We have had a rather lengthy debate on this group of Amendments, but I do not complain about that because I know that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite consider that they strike at the heart of the matter and, therefore, are to be regarded as of the highest importance in relation to this part of the Bill. In view of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to try to put the whole matter in perspective, and then I will come to the merits or demerits of the Amendments.
As hon. Members know, for many years we have had a carriers' licensing system which includes a form of quantity control. It is not a very effectual system, but we have quite a long experience of it. In our reform of the carriers' licensing system, we have taken three basic steps. We have abolished licensing altogether for a substantial proportion of commercial vehicles, about 900,000 of the total of 1½ million. Then we have introduced quality licensing. Finally, we have introduced a novel form of quantity control applicable to a smaller number of vehicles than are subject to "A" licensing today, something under 100,000, compared with 190,000 today, but biting in an effective way on the operations of

those vehicles, which is not achieved by the present system.
For a very long period, the trend has been for traffic to transfer from rail to road, and we have deliberately set out to try, in the national interest, to provide for a transfer of traffic from road to rail, notwithstanding the fact that, even on our optimum calculations, it will continue to mean a growth of the road transport industry and that in 10 years' time our roads will carry a greater proportion of the country's goods.
We have done it by saying that quantity control shall be applicable only to journeys of over 100 miles by vehicles of over 16 tons gross weight and to the carriage of specified bulk commodities over any distance. That is estimated to affect 100,000 of the 1½ million vehicles in the business. I stress that, because there is still a misapprehension that, somehow, it is applicable to all vehicles and all journeys.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite move to amend the system in three ways. First, they wish to insert an exemption by altering the definition of the controlled journey by saying that it should not apply where there is no railway system. Second, they move to say that, where the railway terminals are more than a certain distance from the origin or destination of the journey, the system should not be applicable. Third, hon. Members on the Liberal benches propose that certain types of goods should be exempted where they are certified as being unsuitable for transportation by rail.
To make the system workable, we are anxious to establish the general rule. Clearly, that will be unpalatable to those who are utterly opposed to any kind of quantity control. It has been interesting to hear that the Conservative Party is against any form of quantity control and is in favour of total laisser-faire. To those who are against any form of quantity control, it will be unpalatable, but we must seek to make the system workable by establishing the general rule.
I know that there is power in the Bill for the making of exemptions from quantity licensing. In Committee, we produced a provisional list of items that it was proposed to exclude for good and sufficient reasons. The three items were the carriage of household furniture, the


carriage of livestock, and journeys between off-shore islands. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) that the latter item means not only in and between the off-shore islands, but between the islands and the mainland. However, it does not cover journeys which continue over 100 miles on the mainland and which might be suitable for freighters.

Mr. Peter Bessell: The three items that the hon. Gentleman has listed were debated in Standing Committee, but does he envisage that perishable goods would be among the matters to be included in a later list?

Mr. Swingler: I said that this was a provisional list. However, if we are to make the system work in pursuit of the aims that we have set out to achieve, the more exemptions and exceptions written into the Statute or into regulations, the more unworkable the system will become and the more unlikely it will be to achieve those aims. We therefore approach in a highly critical fashion any proposition for exemptions.

Mr. MacArthur: Will not the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking about transport of perishable goods? Does he recognise that under the working of this Clause many perishable goods will perish?

Mr. Swingler: I do not think that the hon. Member is correct. He has seriously overlooked the safeguards written into the Bill.

Mr. Manuel: May I remind my hon. Friend that certain people are receiving very good service through perishable goods being carried overnight and arriving fresh in the morning at their destinations? I should not like the Minister to do anything which would weaken the resolve of those people to send their goods by freightliner trains.

Mr. Swingler: I hope that nothing I say will weaken the resolve of those who use freightliner trains for the conveyance of all kinds: of commodities to do so in future.
In answer to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), I point out that Clause 68(2)(b), dealing with a controlled journey, covers a transport service, not only one journey. It

may be a pattern of journeys on a regular basis according to the particulars given to the licensing authority. I assure the hon. Member that the conception embodied in the Statute is that a licensing authority can consider a whole pattern of journeys, including back loads and back journeys. This would reduce any necessity for bureaucracy so long as the licensing authority was satisfied on the basis of speed, reliability and cost that the goods should go by road.
That is also my answer to questions about perishable goods from the West Country. This should genuinely be the test. If it is the conviction of hon. Members and their constituents that these goods must go by road transport on account of certain factors, on account of efficiency, seasonal fluctuations and perishability, it should also be the conviction of those hon. Members and their constituents that they would have no difficulty in convincing an independent licensing authority that on the strict test of speed, reliability and cost these permits should be granted almost automatically.
In Clause 69(2) we have met the point made by the Liberal Party about certification. That subsection provides deliberately for a certification procedure very close to the lines of the Liberal Amendment. It waives the whole of the objection procedure and the waiting days if the haulier can give the licensing authority a certificate that the Railway Board does not object. In fact, that process has been going on for a long time already. Recently, a public speech was made by the Chairman of the Railways Board in which he said that the Board will not take up a ridiculous posture of offering formal objections in cases where there are no railway lines or service on freight lines.
It would be a ridiculous and extraordinary misrepresentation of the relationship between road hauliers and the managers of British Railways to suggest that they would indulge in an absurd dialogue where no possibility of rail transport exists. Under Clause 69(2) there is automatic granting of licences where a certificate is issued and the railway authorities cannot object because they cannot provide a service.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: A horticulturist may be growing a highly perishable crop and


sending day after day to a market. Then he wishes to switch to another market. Perhaps he has been sending from Cheddar to Covent Garden and he wishes to switch to Newcastle. Would he get an automatic certificate in the course of an afternoon?

Mr. Swingler: If the hon. Member is asking me about the judgment that would be made by British Railways or the Freight Corporation management, it would be entirely wrong for me to prejudge what attitude they would take, but I call attention to Clause 71, which provides for the emergency granting or the granting in exceptional circumstances of authorisations, again waiving the whole of the objection procedure. If a case were made at a few hours' notice that action must be taken because of the nature of the goods, that would be done. That is why we have inserted that Clause. The licensing authority is given discretionary power to grant these authorisations.
While we want to establish a general rule and, therefore, not to write exemptions into the Statute, we want flexible administration. There will be some exemptions, but there will be flexibility and the possibility of road hauliers agreeing with British Rail and the Freight Corporation that certain journeys must be done by road because of questions of speed, reliability and cost. That is why I cannot accept the Amendment, but I give the assurance on Amendment No. 272 that in Clause 69(2) the point is met. With the reasonable relationship between the road haulage industry and the Railways Board and the Freightliner management, the purpose which they wish to achieve, if this is the most efficient way of doing the job, will be achieved.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am sorry to start my speech in the rather exceptional circumstances of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) not being in his place. I regret that, because I wanted to congratulate him. He ended his speech by saying that this is a good Transport Bill. If my constituency were like his, the only constituency in the country exempt both from P.T.A.s and quantity licensing, I might have felt the same. His constituents must be considered some of the most fortunate in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) intervened following the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, West (Mr. James Davidson) because he is very enthusiastic, as I think most of us are, in trying to ensure that the reputation of railwaymen should be in no way damaged. As he was a railwayman for many years, we appreciate that, but the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West did not wish to put a slur on the reputation of railwaymen. He said that someone had made a decision not to send goods by rail because when he did so the goods suffered pilferage.
Likewise, it was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman that people sending goods by lorries doubtless suffer the same thing, and decide to send them by rail. The hon. Member was pointing out that it was a matter of choice. Certain types of goods might well suffer more pilferage by road than by rail, and vice versa. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that the railwaymen have a high reputation for integrity and good service to the public.

Mr. Manuel: I am very pleased that the hon. Member has raised this matter. If I mistakenly took it that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) was meaning that railwaymen had pilfered goods sent by rail, I unreservedly withdraw any allegations.

Mr. James Davidson: I did not mention railway workers. I did not mention any particular group of people. I merely said that goods of this nature had been pilfered when sent by rail. I said, "when sent by rail", not, "by railway workers". The hon. Gentleman can look it up in HANSARD tomorrow.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, has made it perfectly clear that he meant no imputation against railwaymen. Both sides of the House will agree with that.
We were disappointed with the Minister's remarks. The difference between us was summed up when the hon. Gentleman said that the Government's attitude was that they want the minimum of exceptions to quantity licensing. We on this side want to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. We cannot see why we should have a system under which, for example, people in a part of Scotland


where there are no railways go through the process constantly when they suddenly want to send goods for more than 100 miles. They will have to make this sort of application, well knowing that they will get approval, and this is completely unnecessary. The reason why the Western Isles and the islands are exempted is that they do not possess railways, and the Government obviously consider that it would be a complete waste of time to put them through the process.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman constantly intervenes during these debates. He makes uninteresting interventions that are off the point, and 1 shall not give way.
Amendment No. 265 would result in considerable areas of Scotland and other localities being saved the appalling bureaucracy that quantity licensing involves. The people in the areas would know that they can invest in lorries and other vehicles and how they can organise their transport.

I normally respect the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) on this topic, but he failed to recognise that it is not just the railways that could object. The National Freight Corporation, which could have a branch using only lorries in one of those areas, could decide many hundreds of miles away to use a railway for a proportion of a journey, and could object.

Mr. John Hynd: I was replying to the points made in the debate by hon. Members opposite in reference to the railways.

Mr. Walker: The Amendments concern the fact that if there is no railway in an area the N.F.O. may well have a depot there and can object, and the whole process of licensing comes into the matter, in our view unnecessarily. Therefore, I am completely dissatisfied with the Minister's reply and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Question put: That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 260.

Division No. 193.]
AYES
[4.54 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Grant-Ferris, R.


Astor, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neil)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'tl &amp; M'd'n)
Corfield, F. V.
Grieve, Percy


Awdry, Daniel
Costa in, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Crouch, David
Grimond, Rt. Hn. j.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bairtiel, Lord
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Currie, G. B. H.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Batsford, Brian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Davitfson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Belt, Ronald
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bessell, Peter
Doughty, Charles
Hastings, Stephen


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hay, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Eden, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Boardman, Turn (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Heseltine, Michael


Body, Richard
Emery, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Errington, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph


Boyd-Carpentor, Rt. Hn. John
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hill, J. E. B.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Eyre, Reginald
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin 


Braine, Bernard
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel
Hordern, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Hunt, John


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bryan, Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G
Iremonger, T. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Gibson-Watt, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Campbell, Gordon
Glyn, Sir Richard
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, Henry
Cower, Raymond
Kimball, Marcus




King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith



Kirk, Peter
Nott, John
Stainon, Keith


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Lambton, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Teeling, Sir William


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'd field)
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peyton, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lubbock, Eric
Pink, R. Bonner
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pounder, Rafton
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Prior, J. M. L.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Pym, Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wall, Patrick


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walters, Dennis


Maddan, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Webster, David


Maginnis, John E.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Royle, Anthony
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Russell, Sir Roland
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Monro, Hector
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharpies, Richard
Wylie, N. R.



Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby) 
Younger, Hn. George


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Silvester, Frederick



Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Jasper More and


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Mr. Bernard Weatheriil.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Albu, Austen
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, W. E.


Alldritt, Walter
Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry


Allen, Scholefield
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Anderson, Donald
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gregory, Arnold


Archer, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamling, William


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, William


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Joel
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bence, Cyril
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Haseldine, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Delargy, Hugh
Hattersley, Roy


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) 
Dell, Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Binns, John
Dempsey, James
Henig, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Dewar, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Blackburn, F.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dickens, James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Booth, Albert
Driberg, Tom
Howie, W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hoy, James


Boyden, James
Durnnett, Jack
Huckfield, Leslie


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e) 
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hynd, John


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
English, Michael
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ennals, David
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ensor, David
Janner, Sir Barnett


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
Jeger, George (Goole)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) 
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)



Coe, Denis
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald
Judd, Frank







Kelley, Richard
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Moyle, Roland
Silver-man, Julius (Aston)


Lawson, George
Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph


Ledger, Ron
Newens, Stan
Small, William


Lee, John (Reading)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Snow, Julian


Lestor, Miss Joan
Norwood, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ogden, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lipton, Marcus
Oram, Albert E.
Swain, Thomas


Lomas, Kenneth
Orme, Stanley
Swingler, Stephen


Lyon, Alexander w. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Symonds, J. B.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Taverne, Dick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


McBride, Neil
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McCann, John
Park, Trevor
Thornton, Ernest


MacColl, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tinn, James


MacDermot, Niall
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tomney, Frank


Macdonald, A. H.
Pavitt, Laurence
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Varley, Eric G.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pentland, Norman
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mackle, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Thomas (Westhoushton)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Randall, Harry
Whitaker, Ben


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Reynolds, G. W,
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mallalieu, E, L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mallalieu, J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Manuel, Archie
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Marks, Kenneth
Robrnson, Rt.Hn,Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Winnick, David


Mayhew, Christopher
Roebuck, Roy
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mendelson, J. J.
Rose, Paul
Woof, Robert


Mikardo, Ian
Ryan, John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Millan, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Yates, Victor


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert



Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr.Alan Fitch and


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Joan L. Evans.

Amendment made: No. 268, in page 96,line 2, leave out ' ten ' and insert ' eleven '.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 69

OBJECTIONS TO GRANT OF SPECIAL AUTHORISATIONS

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 277, in page 97,line 7, after ' Act', insert:
' within five days of receipt of the application in the form prescribed in the foregoing section '.
I understand that we shall also discuss the following Amendment standing in my name, No. 278, in page 97, line 20, leave out ' fourteen ' and insert ' seven '.
This Clause deals with objections to special authorisations. There are three steps in the procedure. First, the operator must apply to the licensing authority for the special authorisation. The authority then sends a copy of the application to the Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation. There is no time

limit in the Bill for this stage—the authority can take its time. The third step is that the Railways Board or the N.F.C. can object and they are given 14 days in which to make their objection.

The purpose of the Amendment is to try to speed up the procedure. This is surely desirable. It is reasonable to ask the licensing authority to send an application at once to the Railways Board and the N.F.C. That is only common sense. We appreciate that we must allow for weekends and Bank holidays, so we propose that term as five days.

Secondly, we do not consider that the Railways Board and the N.F.C. need a fortnight in which to make up their minds whether or not to object. We think that seven days is quite long enough, and provide for this in Amendment No. 278. We have had a number of representations that the whole procedure of special authorisations will cause unnecessary delay, and in transport unnecessary delay causes chaos. It is simply our intention to reduce that delay to the absolute minimum.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): We all wish to see as little delay as possible, but the Amendment is an unnecessary elaboration. The licensing authority's duty to send an application to these two bodies is a necessary part of the machinery for dealing with special authorisations, just as the publication of applications for A and B carrier licences was a necessary part of carrier licensing; in both cases the purpose is to give potential objectors the opportunity to object.
It was not, however, thought necessary in the carrier licensing system to provide in the Road Traffic Act, 1960, that the licensing authority must publish the application within a specified time. Nor is it necessary here to provide that he must send copies to the two potential objectors within a specified time.
If, contrary to experience hitherto, unreasonable delays take place in the sending on of applications to the Railways Board or the N.F.C. the Minister has reserve powers of direction under Clause 55(2). But there is no reason to suppose that it would be necessary to use them for this purpose.
The Bill proposes to follow the same principle of allowing 14 days for objections as was allowed in the Goods Vehicles Licences and Prohibitions Regulations made under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. It is important, if the system is to work efficiently, that potential objectors should have sufficient time to consider carefully whether they wish to object to a particular application. A period of seven days would be too short in some cases, bearing in mind that it is timed from the date of despatch of the copy from the licensing authority's office and that the regional office of the objector may sometimes wish to refer to headquarters for advice.
The tendency under the Amendments might be towards longer delays in the actual granting of a licence. This is because the seven-day period proposed in Amendment No. 278 may be considered too short for a thorough study of the matter. And so as not to lose the right to object, unnecessary objections may be lodged, holding up the granting of the licences.
Clause 71 provides for the streamlined granting of special authorisations to meet

unforeseen, urgent needs. Clause 69(2) provides that applications endorsed by the Railways Board or the Freight Corporation are to be granted without having to go through the objection procedure. Both these procedures—the latter was introduced in Committee—make Amendment No. 278 largely unnecessary as well as undesirable. I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw the Amendment. We are anxious that there should not be any unnecessary delay, but it may be that this Amendment would lead to greater delay.

Mr. G. Campbell: We are very disappointed with that reply, because we are worried about the question of delays where there are ordinary applications and questions of urgency do not arise. Earlier, I said that the fact that substantial amendment was made to Clause 71 was welcome because we have been pressing for changes here, but it is still urgency that has to be proved.
Obviously, that Clause cannot be overworked so that great numbers of businesses are forced to claim that their application is urgent. We believe that the ordinary system provided for by the other Clauses in the Bill should not cause long delays. The Minister spoke of the present system of licensing, but under the present "A" and "B" licence system there are several possible objectors, and there is need for time to be made available so that they can be made aware of the proposals.
In this system, there are only two possible objectors, known beforehand, the Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation. Therefore, we think that there is a case for making the period shorter than 14 days. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the Government keep this under review when the procedure starts, because the Railways Board and the Freight Corporation could so organise their administration that they could deal with these matters within seven days.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Bessell: I beg to move Amendment No. 279, in page 98, line 3 at end insert:
(c) the requirements in paragraph (6) of this subsection shall only be applied if the licensing authority is satisfied that an objection by the Railways Board is an objection of substance.


In view of the shortage of time and the nearness of the Guillotine, I do not propose to speak to this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: I beg to move Amendment No. 280, in page 98, line 10, leave out 'a public inquiry' and insert:
'an enquiry which shall be held in public unless the applicant requests otherwise, when the licensing authority shall order that the enquiry be held in private'.
Once again I do not propose to spend a considerable amount of time, but this is an Amendment which contains a substantial point, because it is the result of representations made to me by a large number of people. It is an important Amendment in the sense that it would give protection to many people who fear that their privacy would otherwise be invaded.
The Minister of State will recognise that if a public inquiry is held in connection with an application for a licence, as set out in subsection (5) it would inevitably follow that the person making the application might have to reveal in public a great deal of the nature of his business, and a considerable amount of financial and other details, which would clearly be of the greatest benefit to his competitors.
I recognise that it has been the practice in the past that where new applications are made the inquiry is subject to objection, and in such cases there is a degree of publicity. In this case dealing with loads which are to be carried over the specified distance on vehicles over the specified weight, obviously an application will have to be made. This will apply to well-established companies, and manufacturers and others conveying goods produced by themselves, by road.
It is felt very strongly by those in the industry responsible for heavy transport that there could be a serious situation arising from this subsection. If' the inquiry is held in public it follows that a good deal of information will, or could be, disclosed.
If this could be reworded in the manner that I have suggested and the inquiry held in public, unless the applicant requests otherwise, there would be the saving factor that when the applicant wished it, the licensing authority could

authorise the inquiry to be held in private. I cannot believe that there is any intention on the part of the Minister that there should be a wide disclosure to the public of knowledge which is essentially confidential for the successful maintenance and conduct of business. There is clearly a danger that this will occur under the present subsection.

Mr. Carmichael: The purpose of this Amendment is very similar to that of Amendment No. 216. The hon. Member may recall that the Minister of State commented on a similar Amendment to this in Committee saying that consultations were going on with the Council on Tribunals. We recognise the importance of the point, and that proper consideration needs to be given to it. The consultations have largely taken place and final details are being worked out. An Amendment will be introduced into the Bill at a later stage to meet this point.

Mr. Bessell: As I understand the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, there is likely to be an Amendment introduced in another place. This will meet the requirements of the points I have made and in those circumstances, with my thanks to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 281, in page 98, line 10, at end insert:
(5) Where an objection is successful under the provisions of section 70 of this Act the objector shall not refuse to carry the goods in question in accordance with the terms of the application.
There is a point of clarification here. The arguments about this part of the Bill so far have assumed that the Railways Board or the N.F.C. wanted the business and were objecting in order to carry the goods in question themselves. There is a possibility that, having succeeded with their objection, either of the two bodies might later find it inconvenient or uneconomic to carry out the service. They might start it and then discontinue it. Alternatively, they might decide never to undertake it.
Is there any obligation upon an objector, having succeeded in his objection, to carry out the service? If not, the customer, who is so often forgotten in


these debates on transport, may find that he has been denied a special authorisation for road vehicles which would carry his goods and that the National Freight Corporation or British Railways are not prepared to do the job either.
Under the system of A and B licences there have been many occasions when British Railways have objected to new road services where they had no intention of carrying out the business themselves. The procedure is such that an objection can be made and sustained and there is no obligation upon British Railways to carry out the service in question. Because that is part of the existing system, it could be that British Railways and the Freight Corporation might go on with this habit, thinking that the same process under the quantity licensing procedure is provided for.
I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to give their views on the matter and state whether an Amendment in this form is necessary or not.

Mr. Swingler: I am glad that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) put the issue in this form, because I had some difficulty about the terms of the Amendment. The Amendment states:
Where an objection"—
from either the Railways Board or the National Freight Corporation—
is successful … the objector shall not refuse to carry the goods in question in accordance with the terms of the application.
The "terms of the application" would be to carry the goods by road. We should have the curious situation that if the objector was successful and got the traffic, he would be obliged to carry it by road. That would be extraordinary after he had spent so much time devising an argument for trying to get a transfer of the freight to rail. Thus, the hon. Gentleman will easily see why I could not accept the terms of the Amendment. Nevertheless, I take the point he has raised.
When a disputed case has been dealt with and the Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation are successful in an objection before the licensing authority, it is very important that they measure up to their responsibilities in terms of speed, reliability and cost, and

that they should carry the traffic in accordance with the undertakings that they have given.
As we see it, the sanction lies in experience. Hon. Members who have studied this matter carefully will realise that the whole system is not only a challenge to the road transport industry; it is a challenge to the railways management to prove that it can make a superior offer in terms of speed, reliability and cost and that, by experience, it can be relied upon by the industry concerned, by the consignors, and by the licensing authorities, to carry out the job. It will be clear from experience that, on the first occasion that the Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation let the consigner down and fail to fulfil their undertakings, that example will be quoted before licensing authorities all over the country—quite justifiably. It will be quoted in evidence against them that, especially on the ground of reliability, they have not managed to sustain their case.
Therefore, there is the warning here for the Railways Board, as much as for the road hauliers, that, having put forward and sustained a case in front of the licensing authorities, they had better be careful about carrying and delivering the goods, because the applicant can come back to the licensing authority at any time and make the case that the railways have not done what they said they would do in terms of speed, reliability and cost. Moreover, if that happens in any part under this licensing system, it will be quoted elsewhere and will clearly influence the licensing authorities in favour of road haulage applicants. That, as we see it, is the important sanction contained within the whole system. It should give sufficient assurance to all concerned that those who come before the licensing authorities and make out a case with figures about charges, speed and so on, had better fulfil their promise to undertake the traffic. Otherwise, the licensing authorities will make future judgments against them.

Mr. G. Campbell: I am glad that the Minister has taken this attitude towards the matter. I hope that what he has said has removed some of the doubts of those who have been looking at the terms of the Bill about frivolous objections— perhaps I should not say "frivolous"—


being put forward by either of the two bodies when they cannot carry out the task in question.
The drafting did present a problem. The object of putting those words at the end was to make it clear that it would be the kind of goods and the circumstances of the application that would apply. To have drafted the Amendment precisely would have meant drafting a very long paragraph indeed. I am sure that the Minister got the point of the Amendment.
In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 70

DECISION ON APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL AUTHORISATIONS

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 282, in page 98, line 24, leave out ' the applicant satisfies the authority ' and insert ' satisfied '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 283.

Mr. Carmichael: These amendments carry out the undertaking given by the Minister of State in Committee that the Government would introduce amendments to make it crystal clear that both sides have to try to prove their case when a quantity licence application is being heard. Their effect is to remove the requirement that, in order to get a licence, the applicant must satisfy the licensing authority that rail carriage for the goods concerned would be less advantageous in terms of speed, reliability and cost, and to substitute the requirement that the licensing authority must be so satisfied.
The Amendments thus make clear beyond doubt what has always been the intention—that both parties to a hearing must make their cases in some detail before the licensing authority makes up its mind. The applicant's situation will be, as the Minister of State said in Committee, that he must
… show, if he can, how the service offered by the railways, as to both price and quality, cannot meet the circumstances of his case. If he can demonstrate that to the licensing autho-

rity, his application will be granted."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 23rd April, 1968, c. 2690.]
Equally there is an obligation on the objectors to make out a substantial case to back up their objection. If they do not, the licensing authority may grant the application.
This also ties up with the point made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) when he used the word "frivolous", although he added that that was not quite the right word. This clears up the point that frivolous objections will not be sustained.

Mr. G. Campbell: This Amendment goes some way towards meeting the strong representations which we made in Committee. The Minister, in his last speech in the Committee before the Guillotine fell on this section, said that these changes would be made. So far as they improve the position to some extent, we welcome them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendment made: No. 283, in page 98, line 29, [Clause 70], leave out
' the applicant satisfies the authority' and insert 'satisfied'.—[Mr. Carmichael]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 284, in page 98, line 32, after ' aforesaid ' to insert:
' and subject to subsection (3A) of. this section'.
Perhaps it will be convenient if we discuss Amendments Nos. 284 and 287 together. They are very important. I believe they demonstrate that we have paid the utmost attention to criticisms made during the Committee stage of the Bill and have endeavoured, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), to meet certain other points. Those who were on the Committee or who have studied its proceedings will know that we there had a lengthy discussion about the pattern of operations in the road haulage industry and, in particular, about the subject of back loading in relation to controlled journeys, and about arguments or disputes before a licensing authority when applications came before it.
I know that ever since these proposals were produced, and ever since the Bill


was published, we have frequently been accused of writing into the Bill a preference for the railways. It has often been argued to me that there was a built-in bias in favour of the railways in the terms of the quantity licensing system. Hon. Members will also know that I have frequently stated that we have made the case that disputes as to whether certain traffic should go by road or rail for a distance over 100 miles were to be judged objectively in relation to speed, reliability and cost. But certain problems were raised, quite rightly, on Standing Committee, which concerned the nature of the operations of the road transport industry.
In these Amendments we have endeavoured to meet the case that was put forward in order to demonstrate that it was not our intention that there should be a built-in preference for the railways in the system but that cases should be judged objectively. I am assuming in what I am saying that hon. Gentlemen are acquainted with the nature of the discussion we had on Standing Committee. These Amendments require the licensing authority, where he finds that under Clause 70(2) he would refuse an application from a road haulier, to grant it nevertheless, if he is satisfied, first, that the rail service would be equally advantageous to the consignor as carriage by road, that is, he is satisfied that the two services are on a par and that the difference between the two is only marginal, and secondly, that refusal of the application would result in serious detriment to some other person, not necessarily concerned with the application or the controlled journey in dispute before the licensing authority; that it would be disadvantageous, say, because of the inability of the road haulier, if application were refused, to pick up a backload or to undertake a certain pattern of journeys.
Hon. Gentlemen will see that this was a difficult point and in relation to these Amendments I gave an undertaking on Clause 67 in Committee that we would study the point and endeavour to meet it. The undertaking which I then gave appears in cols. 2691 to 2694 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, should hon. Gentlemen wish to refer to it. We made it quite clear that, where a licensing authority

judged that the National Freight Corporation or the Railways Board had made out a superior case in terms of speed, reliability and cost, the application should be refused and the goods should be carried by rail; but we now say that if there is a marginal case or an even balance between the claims of road and rail transport and the applicant can show that other consignors would be detrimentally affected by the refusal of his application, it would then be right for the licensing authority to take those effects into account and to grant the application under consideration.
This provides, therefore, that in such marginal cases licensing authorities shall be instructed to take these indirect effects into account. It provides that my right hon. Friend shall issue regulations to licensing authorities making clear what we mean by "serious detriment" to the interests of other consignors and it provides for the licensing authorities to take into account the factor of back loads when those authorities are concerned with such marginal cases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and others who spoke on this issue in the course of Committee stage, although they may not agree with some of these general points, will feel that we have gone sufficiently far to meet them and I hope that they will see that this is evidence that we have grappled with this particular problem and have endeavoured to meet it. We have somewhat shifted the balance of judgment on the part of the licensing authority in the consideration of a number of cases. I would hope, therefore, that these Amendments will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: Clearly, the Government have tried to meet the points we raised in Standing Committee and therefore we welcome these Amendments, but we say they have not gone quite far enough. Our Amendments Nos. 285 and 286 would seek to go a good deal further. I would like to comment on what the Minister of State has said. As I understand the effect of the Bill as drawn, it is twofold. First, if an applicant's service is less advantageous than the objector's his application fails. That is fair enough. But secondly, if the applicant's service is equally as good as the objector's but no


better, then he fails. We on this side do not consider that this is fair. We do not feel that it is right that the dice should be loaded against the applicant. We feel that if the applicant can show that his service is as good as the objector's he should be given special authorisation.
The Minister of State said that this matter had been fully argued in Standing Committee and that the Government have now come forward with the concession in Amendment No. 287. That is clearly a step in the right direction, and we welcome it. The Government admit, therefore, that where there are rival claims between the private operator and the objector and those claims are level, and the applicant can show that real hardship would be caused to him, in those circumstances he gets the benefit of the doubt. We feel that on any occasion if he can show that his service is as good as the objector's he should get the benefit of the doubt.
Our Amendment No. 286 reflects our belief that if such a dispute takes place between the citizen and the State or the private operator and a nationalised industry and there is any doubt, the onus should in that case be on the objector and not the citizen. That is why in Amendment No. 286 we were to seek to make quite certain that the onus of proof remains throughout on the objector. We believe a fundamental principle is involved here. We are still anxious to get on to the very important Amendments still to be discussed before Six o'clock and therefore I shall not move Amendments 285 and 286, and we certainly accept the Amendment which the Government have moved.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On a point of order. I have risen to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, three times this afternoon and so far I have been unsuccessful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. Mr. Huckfield.

Mr. Huckfield: I thank the Minister of State for these Amendments because they go a long way to meet some of my objections to this part of the Bill. But, since hon. Members opposite have provided such poor opposition on this matter, the main opposition will have

to come from me. Despite the Amendments, which I welcome, if we are to be able to consider licensing applications on the basis of cost, speed and reliability only in cases of marginal balance, I would have thought that we should consider these other factors in all applications.
This is the present system and the one which I would, basically, like to continue. In the 1933 Act the onus of proof was on the applicant. In the 1953 Act, it was shifted to the objector. It now seems to be coming to lie somewhere between the two. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for these Amendments, which go in the direction that I would like, but I should still have liked the burden of proof shifted back to the objector, because it is for him to prove that an applicant cannot provide the services which he feels that he can provide. However, since this is, I assume, the only concession which we shall extract from my hon. Friend, I am willing to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 287, in page 98, line 44, at end insert:
(3A) If in the case of the whole or any part of the disputed service the licensing authority is not satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, the authority shall nevertheless grant the application in respect of the disputed service or of any part of it if satisfied—

a) that the provision of the service, or of that part of it, by the objector, or a subsidiary of the objector, wholly or partly by rail, as compared with its provisionin pursuance of the special authorisation, will be equally advantageous for the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried; and
(b) that, if a special authorisation is not granted for the provision of the service or the part of it in question, serious detriment will result to a person (whether the applicant himself or some other person) for whom the applicant provides or proposes to provide a transport service other than the disputed service or other than the part of it in question.

No. 288, in page 98, line 42, leave out ' subsection (3)' and insert ' subsection(3) ad (3A)(a)'—[Mr.Swingler.]

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 289, in page 98, line 42 after ' cost', insert:
' and all other relevant factors including suitability, flexibility, convenience, frequency of


delivery, availability at short notice, risks of damage or contamination, provision for insurance of the goods to be carried and the cost and nature of packing required for alternative services'.
This is a very important Amendment and I am glad that, even under the Guillotine, we have reached it on Report, although we had no hope of doing so in Committee. It relates to the criteria on which the licensing authorities must make these difficult judgments. We propose other important criteria which should be taken into account in various cases. The Government's criteria are simply speed, reliability and cost, which are not easy to establish or compare and will give the licensing authorities an unenviable task, but the innumerable different decisions on the choice of transport which firms must take are governed by many other factors.
It would never be possible to write in all the factors which various businesses have to take into account, or the weight to be attached to them, because these are different for different kinds of business. This part of the Bill affects businesses running goods in their own vehicles; it is not simply a matter for the road haulage industry, but concerns a wide range of trade and industry using transport, which may be their own.
5.45 p.m.
The Amendment pinpoints some of the criteria which should be considered, and the basic dilemma. In moving the last Amendment, the Minister of State spoke of quantity licensing affecting journeys of over 100 miles, but another part of the system, which is being overlooked, is that covering bulk loads of certain commodities to be prescribed. We have had one list, including clay and iron and steel, and so on, but we do not know how many other commodities will be prescribed. These commodities cannot be carried over any distance, without a special authorisation, and there is no question of 100 miles there. These judgments will cover that side of quantity licensing as well.
So far, the Government's attitude to additional criteria has been that, if other factors were included and the scope of inquiry extended, the system would be unworkable. But this confirms our objection to this part of the Bill, which is shared by the hon. Member for

Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and other hon. Members opposite, that a fair system, taking in all the points affecting our economy, would be unworkable. So it must be either unworkable or unfair.
If the Government are to take the alternative of giving wide and full discretion to the licensing authorities without criteria, they could leave it to the authorities to decide in any case. But then, in practically every case, the authorities would simply have to endorse the decisions taken by firms, since, if those firms were well-informed about the latest freightliner and railway developments, as they should be, their decisions would be right and would have to be endorsed.
This is the dilemma—that, with full discretion given to the licensing authority, the system would be unnecessary since they would endorse firms' decisions, and alternatively, if criteria are written in, the whole process of transport used by trade and industry would be restricted and stultified. But if the Government insist on criteria, they should not leave it at these three. The criteria in the Amendment are not exhaustive—I have said that that would be impossible—but they illustrate some other important points which should be considered.
I therefore hope that the Government will consider again whether any criteria should be written in, and that, if they are written in, these will be included. The Amendment raises the main point that quantity licensing is utterly unnecessary and will simply cause delays and damage to trade and industry because they will be unable to take quick decisions on the best form of transport for each case.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I have put down a similar Amendment, No. 567, which unfortunately has not been called, but I express similar concern to that of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). I have always felt that to ask a licensing authority to decide on the basis of three factors severely restricted it, particularly when we shall be dealing in future with all sorts of vehicle operators who have been running their own transport, and, therefore, with a new range of factors which are not quantifiable
Many of these operators operate their own vehicles because they like to see the


firm's name on the van. Many do so because they like to preserve good customer relations. Many do so because they like to have hire-and-fire control of the drivers. Many do so for a whole range of similar reasons which cannot be quantified or subsumed under these three headings. I would have thought that the licensing authority should be given power to take into consideration more than cost, reliability and speed. I do not quite agree with the Amendment put forward by the hon. Gentleman. Even giving the licensing authority that slightly wider range of factors to consider will restrict it in some considerations. I would have preferred the approach I have suggested to permit the licensing authority to take into account anything which it is felt should be considered. I feel a great deal of sympathy, and I hope my hon. Friend can make some concession in this direction.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This is the most important Amendment to this part of the Bill, because it is vital to the successful and efficient operation of British industry, particularly the export section. It is disgraceful that the powerful case in favour of this Amendment cannot be fully employed from this side of the House, although we are grateful for the support we have had from hon. Gentlemen.
I press my case from the point of view of the motor industry in the Midlands, our largest exporter. Some years ago I was in the Longbridge motor factory in order to see the new improvements in efficiency that had been introduced since I had been before, and in the assembly shop it was pointed out to me that radiators being fitted into the cars were no longer held in stock by the company to the tune of locking up something like £500,000 but were coming continuously by road on a schedule from the makers. Sir George Harriman said, "You see, the road system is part of the flow-line of the factory". The continuous delivery of radiators was being timed in with the mechanical system bringing bodies and engines, so it needed flexibility to be reduced or increased.
This applies also to electrical equipment from Lucas's, with whom I have recently been in touch, and also to castings and to the road springs from Sheffield. This applies not only to Birming-

ham but also to the Rootes' factory at Lindwood in Scotland and the B.M.C. factory at Bathgate in Scotland to which many components must go up from the West Midlands or from Sheffield. It also applies to Dagenham. The point I want to make is that speed reliability and cost are not enough; flexibility is vital.
One final example with regard to these components. In Dagenham, for instance, these schedules run three-hourly or hour by hour. This method can be practised by the road industry to fit in with the production cycle of a factory. If suddenly there is a demand for a new model to be exported, as often happens with Ford's, a telephone call goes through that they want immediately to speed up the delivery of components in the Birmingham area. How is that going to happen? It is disgraceful to put the transport managers of our great industrial concerns in this position.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I want strongly to support this Amendment. I am sure it is vital in a wider sphere even than the motor industry. Steel has been mentioned as one of the commodities that cannot go any distance except by authorisation, steel that is going to make machinery for export may arrive damaged and cannot be used. That surely should be altered to allow these facts to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Carmichael: This question was very well ventilated in the Committee stage and my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave a number of assurances on factors of this kind.

Mr. G. Campbell: But we did not reach anywhere near this Clause in Committee. Any discussion could only be brought in in passing on other points.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) knows that I joined the Committee rather late, nevertheless it seemed to me to have been one of the main topics all the time I was in the Committee. I know from what I have heard that my hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the matter in the debate on Clause 67. The Minister of State gave assurances that factors of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn would be comprised in the regulations which the Minister is empowered to make regarding speed, reliability and cost, and I do


not think I could do better than quote from the speech of my hon. Friend on 23rd April. He said:
It is our intention that these criteria should be interpreted very broadly indeed. For example, if the goods are fragile and if it is established that there is greater risk of breakages on the railways, that is a perfectly proper point for the licensing authority to consider. If packaging or insurance for rail are more costly than for road, that is a relevant consideration under these criteria. If the applicant represents that the rail service operates only at fixed intervals whereas road vehicles can be made available at short and irregular intervals thus obviating the need for maintaining large stocks, the licensing authority will be able to take account of these facts in assessing the considerations of speed and cost."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 23rd April, 1968; c. 2691.]
This clearly answers the points made by the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke about radiators moving back and forth. But the motor industry also uses railways to an extent. I know that a train leaves Dagenham every evening and goes to Liverpool carrying engines and radiators. All we are concerned about here is that the question of speed, reliability and cost should be interpreted in the spirit that the Bill intends and with the assurances that my right hon. Friend gave in Committee in which he almost spelt out the points made by the right hon. Member.

Mr. Bessell: The point that was being made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) is

that it is not a question of speed, cost and reliability but also a question of flexibility because of emergencies that arise.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member has not listened very carefully. I did say that if the applicant represents that the rail service operates only at fixed intervals whereas road services can be made available at short and irregular intervals thus obviating the need for maintaining large stocks, the licensing authority will be able to take account of these factors.
Neither the mover of the Amendment nor the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who spoke, including my hon. Friend supporting the other side on this occasion, said anything that made me feel that this Amendment was any more acceptable now than it was in Committee when my hon. Friend made the statement which I have just read.

Mr. Peter Walker: Every word spoken by Ministers on quantity licensing proves the absurdity of the system. The thought of these tribunals discussing things which could better be decided by the transport managers shows that the Government's objection is to restrict and handicap, and certainly I urge my hon. Friends to divide.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 260.

Division No. 194.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Paul
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Emery, Peter


Astor, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Errington, Sir Eric


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Farr, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Campbell, Gordon
Fisher, Nigel


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Balniel, Lord
Cary, Sir Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


Batsford, Brian
Clark, Henry
Fraser, Rt. Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-watt, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bessell, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Glyn, Sir Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Growder, F. P.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Black, Sir Cyril
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Goodhart, Philip


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Currie, G. B. H.
Goodhew, Victor


Body, Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gower, Raymond


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grant, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt, Hn. John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Braine, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grieve, Percy


Brewis, John
Doughty, Charles
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)




Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sharples, Richard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hastings, Stephen
Maude, Angus
Silvester, Frederick


Hawkins, Paul
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Hay, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Stodart, Anthony


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hill, J. E. B.
Mott-Radcly ffe, Sir Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Gathcart)


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Teeling, Sir William


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nobel, Rt. Hn. Michael
Temple, John M.


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Iremonger, T. L.

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pardoe, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, John
Wall, Patrick


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Kirk, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Webster, David


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lambton, Viscount
Pounder, Rafton
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lane, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, J. M. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Francis
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut"nC'dfield)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lloyd, Ian (P'tam'th, Langstone)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


Lubbock, Eric
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Worsley, Marcus


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hn. George


Mackenzie, Aiasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Royle, Anthony
Mr. Hector Monro and


McMaster, Stanley
Russell, Sir Roland
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman





NOES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Driberg, Tom


Albu, Austen
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack


Alldritt, Walter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Allen, Scholefield
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Anderson, Donald
Chapman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Peter
Coe, Denis
Edelman, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, John


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ennals, David


Barnes, Michael
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ensor, David


Barnett, Joel
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bence, Cyril
Cronin, John
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Binns, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Foley, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Blackburn, F.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Forrester, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fowler, Gerry


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Freeson, Reginald


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Galpern, sir Myer


Boyden, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gardner, Tony


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Garrett, W. E.


Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gourlay, Harry


Brooks, Edwin
Delargy, Hugh
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dell, Edmund
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Buchan, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dickens, James
Hamling, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dobson, Ray
Hannan, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph







Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Haseldine, Norman
Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Hattersley, Roy
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, W. O. J, (Walth'stow, E.)


Henig, Stanley
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hooley, Frank
MacPherson, Malcolm
Roebuck, Roy


Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sheldon, Robert


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Howie, W.
Mallalieu, J. P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hoy, James
Manuel, Archie
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Marquand, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Slater, Joseph


Hunter, Adam
Maxwell, Robert
Small, William


Hynd, John
Mayhem, Christopher
Snow, Julian


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mendelson, J. J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael



Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Swain, Thomas


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P' cras, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swingler, Stephen


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Symonds, J. B.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Hoy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Neal, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Newens, Stan
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Norwood, Chistopher
Tinn, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ogden, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Judd, Frank
Oram, Albert E.
Varley, Eric G.


Kelley, Richard




Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oswald, Thomas
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Lawson George
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ledger, Ron
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lee, John (Reading)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Park, Trevor
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lomas, Kenneth
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winnick, David


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McCann, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Wyatt, Woodrow


MacDermot, Niall
Randall, Harry
Yates, Victor


Macdonald, A. H.
Rankin, John



McGuire, Michael
Bees, Merlyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Reynolds, G. W.
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. loan L. Evans.



Mackie, John
Richard, Ivor

It being after Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Amendments made: No. 290, in page 98, line 43, leave out from 'authority' to 'shall' in line 45.

No. 291, in page 99, line 2, at end insert:
(4A) In assessing the detriment mentioned in subsection (3A)(b) of this section and the factors mentioned in subsection (4) of this section the licensing authority shall act in accordance with any directions contained in regulations made by the Minister.

No. 293, in page 99, line 27, leave out '(4)' and insert '(4A)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 75

REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF SPECIAL AUTHORISATIONS

Amendments made: No. 294, in page 102, line 45, at end insert:
(3A) A licensing authority who has made an order under subsection (3) of this section may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, cancel that order.

No. 295, in page 103, line 4, at end insert:
'; and the provisions of section 65(7A), (8) and (9) and of section 66(1)(aa) of this Act shall apply to any direction or order given or made under or by virtue of this subsection as they apply to any direction or order given or made under any provision of section 65 of this Act.'.

No. 296, in page 103, line 6, leave out from ' under ' to ' without' in line 7 and insert:
'subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section in respect of any authorisation or the holder of any authorisation'.

No. 297, in page 103, line 8, leave out ' or licence'.

No. 298, in page 103, line 11, leave out from 'under' to 'of' in line 12 and insert:
subsection (1), (2) or (3)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 76

APPEALS

Amendment made: No. 304, in page 103, line 41, leave out 'subsections (1) to (4)' and insert:
'subsection (1), (2) or (3)'.—[Mr.Marsh.]

Clause 79

FALSIFICATION OF CONSIGNMENT NOTES AND RECORDS

Amendment made: No. 309, in page 107, line 8, after ' alters ' insert' or causes to be altered'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 83

INQUIRIES

Amendment made: No. 310, in page 108, line 27, at end insert:
(3) Where, as respects the proposed exercise of his powers on any occasion under section 65 or 75 of this Act, a licensing authority reecives a request for a public inquiry from two or more persons he may hold a single inquiry in response to both or all of those requests.'— [Mr.Marsh.]

Clause 86

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS FOR PURPOSES OF PART V

Amendment made: No. 311, in page 109,line 45, leave out from ' which' to end of line 5 on page 110 and insert:
' goods are to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as carried for hire or reward and the circumstances in which goods are to be treated for those purposes as carried by any person for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 87

INTERPRETATION OF PART V

Amendment made: No. 314, in page 111, line 41, leave out 'permanent'.— [Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 88

CARRIERS' LICENCES NO LONGER TO BE REQUIRED FOR SMALL VEHICLES

Amendment made: No. 315, in page 113, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) The said section 164 shall not apply to the use of any vehicle for the use of which an operator's licence is required unless that vehicle is a large goods vehicle.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 89

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 316, in page 113, line 7, leave out from beginning to ' with ' in line 12 and insert:
(1) Where before the day on which section 56 of this Act comes into force in relation to any vehicles an application for an operator's licence is made in respect of those vehicles by a person who is the holder of a carrier's licence in respect of all or any of those vehicles, section 59 of this Act shall not apply to the application and section 60 of this Act shall apply to it.

No. 317, in page 113, line 18, leave out from 'licence' to end of line 24 and insert:
' in respect of vehicles which consist of or include vehicles in relation to which section 56 of this Act has come into force shall be made to the licensing authority (within the meaning of the said Part IV) for the area containing the operating centre or operating centres of the vehicles proposed to be used under the licence '.

No. 318, in page 113, line 37, leave out from ' of' to end of line and insert:
'any vehicle which is an authorised vehicle under that licence'.

No. 319, in page 114, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert:
(i) for a special authorisation covering the use of that vehicle; or

No. 320, in page 114, page 6, leave out ' granted by that authority '.

No. 321, in page 114, line 14, leave out from 'shall' to first 'be' in line 15.

No. 322, in page 115, line 20, leave out from ' day ' to ' during '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 90

VEHICLES AND DRIVERS SUBJECT TO CONTROL UNDER PART VI

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): I beg to move Amendment No. 532, in page 116, line 39, at end insert:
(4) This Part of this Act shall not apply where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that a goods vehicle is normally situated in an employment district that lies more than ten hours by road from an urban conurbation and market of one million or more persons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss also Amendment No. 533, to Clause 91, on page 116, page 43, leave out ' nine ' and insert ' eleven '.

Mr. Nott: The Amendments are concerned with drivers hours and, in particular, with the effect of the reduction from eleven hours to nine hours—as it stands in the Bill—and 10 hours if the Government Amendment is carried. I am concerned with the effect which the Amendments will have on the livelihood and prosperity of those in parts of the country which lie more than ten driving hours away from their principal markets. I welcome the concession that the Minister is likely to make in the Government Amendment which will be moved shortly. The increase from nine to 10 hours is a concession which we are all very pleased to have.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Member will notice that the Amendment which is to be moved by the Government is one which his hon. Friends and I pressed for in Committee and proposed in the Amendment in my name.

Mr. Nott: I am aware that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) have done a sterling job in Committee, and many of the concessions which we have achieved we owe to my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, I do not wish to detract from my gratitude to the Minister for accepting the arguments for the increase from nine to ten hours.
I want to point out to him that the increase does not go quite far enough for some industries in the part of the country with which I am concerned. If the Minister has included in Clause 91 the ability

to be able to modify subsection (1) of Clause 91 as well as modifying subsections (2) to (8), I would be partially satisfied. In the Bill as it stands, the Minister has powers to modify subsec-sections (2) to (8) of Clause 91, but has not taken powers to modify subsection (1) which is concerned with the amount of driving time that a driver may spend at the wheel.
I will illustrate my concern about drivers' hours by reference to a case in my constituency. The best example I can take is the fishing industry in Newlyn. It is the largest port in the South-West for landing fish, and it lies approximately 11 hours from the principal market, which is Billingsgate. The South-West, and Cornwall, in particular, are areas with an exceptionally high unemployment rate running into 7 per cent. at some times in the year. It is an area of very low incomes and an area which depends very much on the prosperity of the fishing industry. There are more than 1,000 people directly and indirectly employed in the fishing industry in the development area of Cornwall.
We are particularly concerned about the quantity licensing provision for the reason that the railways have done great damage to the fishing industry in Cornwall in the past by, with considerable fickleness, using their monopolistic position to vary freight rates on the railways by substantial amounts without warning. The fishing industry and its markets in the north and the Midlands were virtually eliminated when the railways raised their fish rates by 50 per cent. one day in 1965.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not talking about freight rates in this Amendment.

Mr. Nott: I was trying to illustrate the concern we have for this industry in the sense that it has had difficulty in the past which will be increased by the drivers' hours provision.
The fishing industry and the broccoli industry, in my constituency, survive and are competitive only because it is possible to get fresh mackerel, other fish and fresh vegetables to the morning markets, and particularly to Billingsgate, by a system of refrigerated lorries. It would not be possible for the fish to be transported by rail for the reason that at the


present time rail rates are up 300 per cent. more than the cost of getting fresh fish to market by refrigerated lorry. It costs approximately Is. Id. per stone at the moment to get fish by road from Newlyn to Billingsgate, whereas on the railway, taking into account the additional costs of returned empties and the losses which constantly occur, the cost of getting, fish to the market is about 3s. per stone. This is a substantial difference.
If drivers' hours are fixed at 10, and there is no way in which the fishing industry can get its produce to Billingsgate Market by the next morning, at the present cost of transportation, then I think that it is not an exaggeration to say that the fishing industry in West Cornwall will be seriously damaged. This is a matter of very great concern to the people in my constituency.
The Ministry answer the objections which we make to these drivers' hours provisions by saying, "Yes, but there is substantial room for an increase in productivity in this industry, and this would substantially offset the increased costs which would come about from the decrease in drivers' hours." But with respect, any increase in productivity which might come about in the industry cannot possibly offset the additional costs of having to have a second driver for what in practice would amount to one extra hour's driving.
I appeal to the Minister to recognise our concern. We are 11 hours by road from the only market for one of the principal industries in Cornwall. It is not possible for the industry to send its goods by rail, because the freight charges are up to 300 per cent. more expensive. If the provision regarding drivers' hours remain at the proposed limit of 10, the Cornish fishing industry does not know how it will face the future.
I do not want to press my Amendment to a Division. I hope that the Minister will consider the possibility, perhaps in another place, of including subsection (1) in his powers of modification. If he does that, we will be able to give him specific examples of how the Cornish fishing industry will run into substantial difficulties without the required extension of drivers' hours.
The Minister may say that he knows of our special problems, that we are

11 hours away from the only market for our fish, but that the Government are thinking of safety and that it is not safe for a man to drive more than 10 hours a day. However, there are special circumstances here in that these drivers only work for 11 hours a day, whereas there are provisions in Clause 91 for a longer working day as long as a driver is at the wheel for only nine or 10 hours.
What happens at Newlyn is that a driver picks up his loaded refrigerated van and drives to Billingsgate, where someone else takes over. He goes off for a rest, and he drives back to Newlyn the next day. In other words, the 11 hours' driving is his working day. We would be perfectly happy with 11 hours' driving time and a working day of 11¼ hours; that would meet the point, because the drivers do nothing else but drive.
If the Minister would include the power to modify drivers' hours to meet special circumstances, which would mean adding in subsection (1) to his powers of modification to subsections (2) to (8), we would be perfectly happy. From the moment that the Bill becomes law, we fear that the Minister will be unable to consider these special cases—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the provisions of Clause 91. If he looks at subsection (9), he will see that the Minister has powers to deal with exceptional circumstances and that, under paragraph (a), he may
create exemptions from all or any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (5) of this section in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations ".

Mr. Nott: The Minister has an Amendment down to subsection (9). When we come to debate it, I hope that he will give an assurance that he will have power to consider special cases like the one that I have mentioned. On the present wording,
to be used in cases of emergency or in exceptional circumstances
it may be thought that the Minister will not be able to vary the working day of a driver for the reasons that I have described. In fact, I tabled an Amendment to the subsection to try and cover the hon. Gentleman's point.
As I have said, I have no wish to force the Amendment to a Division, if


the House, subsequently, gives me leave to withdraw it. However, I hope that the Minister will explain how he can overcome the problem, because it is very serious for one of the most important industries in my constituency.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has made some astonishing assertions, the least of which is that every driver who drives to Billingsgate from Cornwall is working only for 11 hours. If I could be satisfied that a Cornish lorry driver was working the sort of day that he has suggested, I would have more sympathy for his argument. However, I suspect that what tends to happen in quite a few cases is that, before picking up his lorry, he does a certain amount of work in connection with the lorry, just as he does after he gets to Billingsgate. In other words, I rather think that the working day is somewhat longer than he suggests.
I was even more surprised to hear him advocate a working day which is a quarter of an hour longer than at present. The regulation was laid down in 1933 in the Road Traffic Act, and now the hon. Gentleman wants to lengthen the working day by a quarter of an hour—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is what the hon. Gentleman has just advocated. I appreciate that the Cornish fishing trade has problems, not the least of which is that the bulk of drivers on this run will spend most of their working day at the wheel. These are the types of drivers who will be most affected by the proposed cut-down in drivers' hours.
Many drivers will be driving for less than the maximum working day under the present rules and regulations. With the bulk of them working for 11 hours, but only driving for eight, nine or 10, they will not be affected all that much by the new rules, and the proposed system will merely clarify the existing provision.
The hon. Gentleman has something of a point. At the same time, it is fantastic to argue that the whole of an industry's future depends upon the ability of a man to drive more than 10 hours; in other words, working far more hours per week than the average factory or mine worker in my constituency.
The hon. Gentleman has told the House what usually happens. He says that a lorry driver comes from Newlyn to Billingsgate, takes his rest break, I hope, and goes back to Newlyn the following day. My suspicion is that, on the day after that, he will be up to Billingsgate again. The present modus operandi is such that he works something like a 55-hour week, which is far in excess of the average working week. It is fantastic to suggest that the whole industry depends on a working week of that length.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to support the Amendment, because it draws attention to another case which arises out of the peculiar geographical situation of Cornwall.
In a previous debate, I pointed out that Cornwall is a long, narrow county. On that occasion, I remarked that Exeter was half-way to Penzance. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) challenged that statement. I have checked the distances in the Library, and I find that what I said was substantially correct. The rail distance from Paddington to Exeter is 133¼ miles, and from Exeter to Penzance it is 132½ miles.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman checks the A.A. guide, which is also in the Library, he will find that Penzance is 281 miles and Exeter is 169 miles. I hardly think that that justifies his assertion that Exeter is half way to Penzance.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should come to the Amendment now.

Mr. Wilson: The point I wish to make is that there are serious difficulties, not only in the fishing industry but in the agricultural industry, about these drivers' hours. They are competing with other areas which are much nearer to their markets. I am told that, so far as the people dealing with the new potatoes and broccoli are concerned, under the present law they can deliver in an area which includes Birmingham and London with a population of about 20 million. But under the Bill as originally drafted they would be limited to Bristol and Southampton, which would be an area with a population of 2 million.
That claim was made in the Bill as drafted and there has since been some modification. But it is true that owing to the geographical situation of Covent Garden if there are two drivers the cost of transport of a number of these commodities will go up substantially and they will be out of the market.
The hon. Gentleman has assumed that these drivers work all the year, week in and week out, on these runs, but that is not the case, certainly not for the fish people, whose trade is certainly not every day of the week. For broccoli and new potatoes it is very seasonal; they are in season only at certain times of the year for certain periods. We are asking that arrangements should be made with the Minister to deal with special cases in exceptional circumstances over a short period, otherwise these industries will be seriously affected.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that other road hauliers from other parts of the country, because of the present hours' regulations, have made arrangements for shipment from other depots just outside London? I could quote the case of a haulier who, between St. Albans and Watford, hands over to a second driver at Watford to fit in with the hours. This kind of thing can be done by the fishing industry.

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Billingsgate should be put somewhere outside London he just does not know the fish trade; and the same applies to Covent Garden. We know there is a proposal to put it at Nine Elms, which would certainly make it more convenient for the rail delivery.
These hauliers are mostly small people —I am not talking about fish; the fishing industry is very largely in the hands of one firm at Newlyn, dealing with refrigerated lorries, special occasions. The horticultural industry is in the hands of small men, very often the owners of the farms themselves, running two or three lorries. If they have to employ a second driver they are out of the market. It is a serious matter for them.
I hope that the Minister will try to find a way round this difficulty; otherwise, those particular forms of produce will not be on sale in the conurbations in the centre of England or in London.

They will not get there, because they would not be competitive, and they will not be able to have their market at all.

Mr. Peter Mills: I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in this Amendment; he put the case very well. We have particular problems in the South-West. I do not say that they are unique, but they certainly are real problems to us, with our high unemployment and the difficulties of communications. This means a bigger effort for us to compete in the markets. This is my answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). Both management and men have to do that little bit more to compete in the market these days. This business of drivers' hours is of considerable concern both to the men whose pockets will be affected and to the management and the running of these transport companies. I believe that the whole profitability is on a knife-edge.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield indicated dissent.

Mr. Mills: It is no good the hon. Member opposite shaking his head. With our difficulties the question whether we are successful or not rests on a knife-edge.
All that my hon. Friend has said about fish is equally true, more so, of the total tonnage of meat that is going from the South-West. Vast quantities of meat are now being transported by road in special refrigerated lorries. This means that the meat has to be moved quickly from the South-West to the great conurbations. It is important that these drivers should make that little extra effort; and they are willing to do it. It is not a question of working five or six days a week. When killings are taking place in the meat trade they may be driving for only four nights and then they have finished their work. It is certainly not true, as far as I know. I know of a very big slaughterhouse. The men who run this meat trade—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—

Mr. Mills: No, I am not giving way to you. The hon. Member is always interrupting. Let him sit and listen, as I did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are listened to in courtesy might extend the same courtesy to others.

Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I apologise but I was a little carried away. These interruptions are so constant.
The whole of the business of the profitability of the transport of our produce, meat and other things, is on a knife-edge. The difference between being profitable or not means that that little extra effort has to be made. To have another man engaged as a second driver would probably price us out of the market for many of these commodities. Though my hon. Friend's Amendment may not be the answer—I am not saying that we are right on this—I am saying that this is the sort of point that wants to be looked at very carefully, because it is the difference between profitability or not and between selling our produce or not. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to look very carefully at this point we have raised. It is a valid point. I admit that we may not be right, but at least the Minister ought to consider it and understand the difficulties we have in the South-West.

Mr. Manuel: We know the difficulties of hon. Members opposite and that it is a question of profitability. But, of course, these arguments are age-old arguments. These are the very same arguments used when children were employed in the pits.

Mr. Mills: That may be so, but I am saying that we have these difficulties; and now we are having more and more legislation, a whole series of legislation, which is adding to the burden and may very well mean we are just not viable in the future.
The Minister ought to consider not only the South-West—it would be quite wrong for me only to speak on behalf of that region—but all the remoter areas which are on a knife-edge, whether they are profitable or not, and whether we can sell our produce. I hope that when he does so he will take into account the difficulties that not only farmers, but all who are engaged in this way in the South-West find in making their businesses viable.

Mr. Bessell: I intend to intervene only briefly. It would be less than courteous if I did not at this stage say that I am gratified to find the Minister's name above mine attached to Amendment No. 323.

When he made the statement in Committee about temporary revision of this provision so that the working day would be increased from nine to 10 hours, I asked him whether he would be able to accept my Amendment. He could not at that stage say that he could do so. I am glad that he has met the point I made by this compromise.
Grateful as I am for this, and although I am sure that the Minister is right so far as this concerns urban conurbations, there is a difference in Cornwall, the Highlands and other parts of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will deal with this matter on a further Amendment.
I take the opportunity of acknowledging the flexibility which the Minister has shown in this matter. Even though this may be only temporary and eventually he may introduce legislation to bring the limit back to nine hours, for the time being this will considerably help industry. Because of the imaginative way in which he has approached this part of the Bill, it will be most acceptable.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that although these Amendments may not be the right ones it is very important that this point should be looked into. We are discussing the question of the tired driver being a menace not only to himself, but to others. We are talking about realistic limits on his hours and the way in which we should improve on the position which was laid down nearly 40 years ago. That has to be weighed in the balance against the arguments we have heard so far. Amendment No. 532 is concerned, not with fish—

Mr. Keith Stainton: Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge on the fatigue factor and give some statistics?

Dr. Mabon: Not at this stage, because I want to stick strictly to the Amendments. I thought that we agreed on both sides of the House—I did not notice any dissenting voice—with the revised proposals that the Minister is to introduce, which can be changed to the original proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. I thought that


we were all agreed that there should be some revision of the law and that we should try to get it out of productivity. In long-distance haulage there is the greatest scope for achieving better productivity without, at the same time, increasing costs. This is the purpose of the exercise. I agree that it is easier said than done, but I thought that this was common ground between us.
Amendment No. 532 is a bad Amendment. It does not define what is meant by "ten hours by road". The Amendment would not put the position back to what it was 40 years ago, but retrogressively it would go back beyond 1930. When we look at the question of competitors in Europe we see that when proposing a revision of these hours it would make our position absurd if we adopted this Amendment. I do not think that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has thought this matter through. I am not trying to be offensive, but pointing out that Amendment No. 532 would do something which I am sure its sponsor never intended—going back beyond 1930.
Not only lorries carrying fish, but all lorries in the area would be exempt. It is not justifiable that all the lorries in one area should be exempt because a particular industry should be exempt. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) about the ferrying of broccoli to the markets in London. I appreciate that that is a different matter from the carrying of fish. That is why the Minister was very anxious that we should look into this matter. In Committee, we thought we had dealt with it when we accepted an earlier Amendment. Without breaching order, I refer to the Government Amendment No. 346, which seeks to amend subsection (9) of the Clause. That is where we should argue these particular cases rather than on subsection (1) as the hon. Member for St. Ives suggested.
6.45 p.m.
We take the point that there are problems in Cornwall, Devon, the Highlands and elsewhere, but we should have room statutorily to make adjustments for supply needs without doing damage to the general objective of this whole exercise, with which I am sure all hon. Members agree. Amendment No. 533 does offence even to the 1930 Regulations. I earnestly

entreat the hon. Member for St. Ives not to insist on that Amendment, but to help us to get the Government Amendment No. 346 put into the Bill so that the Minister can look afresh at the problems not only concerning fish, but broccoli, and many other commodities.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 1965–66 annual report of the Western Traffic Area Licensing Authority gives the rather shocking figure of 44 per cent. total convictions in the Western area concerned with drivers' hours?

Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that figure must impress hon. Members opposite. They do not wish to be parties to this. Tired drivers are dangerous drivers and we must pay reasonable attention to the proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Stainton: The hon. Member is drawing precisely the wrong conclusion from the statistics. There is no correlation between offences and drivers' hours and accidents. They are purely and straightforwardly offences.

Dr. Mabon: I shall not argue that now. I do not think that there is dissent on either side of the House that these Amendments seek to establish the case for specific hauliers in specific industries. That should be done by amending subsection (9), not by incorporating these Amendments. The Amendments would do considerable damage to the present achievements with reference to drivers' hours. They would put us far behind the rest of Europe and turn the clock back over 40 years. I am sure that is not what the authors of the Amendment intend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stain-ton) will leave the argument he put forward until later, when, no doubt, the Minister will deal with it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been a little surprised to hear the Minister of State advocating rejection of Amendment No. 533 on the basis that it would be unreasonable for any man to be at the wheel for more than 10 hours. Bearing in mind that we considered this matter for many hours in Committee, and have considered it at length today—

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): Would the hon. Member suggest that the performance of the Opposition today is something which we should enlarge upon elsewhere?

Mr. Taylor: 1 think that the performance of the Opposition has shown that we can cope with such a situation, although I would not say the same about the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member now come to the Amendment?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) pointed out how the Clause as drafted could affect important industries which are concerned with perishable goods and are vital to his constituency, and other industries which are highly competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) pointed out that it affects not only the transport of broccoli, but of fish and other commodities. He will have been very glad to hear the Minister say that to meet this kind of special situation the Government have tabled an Amendment which we shall consider later. Many of us wonder about the extent of the Amendment, and we are glad to hear that to meet this kind of situation the Government have drafted an Amendment to meet "a special need".
My hon. Friends have pointed out that a special need is concerned here. The broccoli and fish industries are concerned in getting goods to market in a short time, and other hon. Members could quote many identical cases. The Minister will be aware of an exactly similar situation which arose with a firm in Kilmarnock, engaged in carrying vegetable oil and similar goods from Hull. However, my hon. Friend will be to some extent relieved to hear that to meet this kind of situation the Government have tabled an Amendment. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his excellent speech, in these circumstances he may well be satisfied with the assurances that we have had.

Mr. Nott: I was very happy that the Minister answered these Amendments in the way he did. He has shown some appreciation of the problems and, if I may say so without presumption, he has shown some humility, which is sadly lacking in

the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who knows so much more about everyone else's problems than they do themselves that it really becomes tiresome.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield).

Mr. Nott: On the assurance of the Minister that Government Amendment No. 346, which we shall not have time to discuss under the Guillotine, will enable the special problems of, for example, broccoli and fish transport, to be considered as special cases, I do not wish to press both Amendments. I do not pretend to be a Parliamentary draftsman and will accept that the first Amendment was not well drafted.

Mr. Speaker: It is proposed that the Amendment before us, Amendment No. 532, be withdrawn. This is purely a technical correction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 91

PERMITTED DRIVING TIME AND PERIODS OFDUTY

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 323, in page 116, line 43, leave out 'nine' and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Speaker: With the Amendment we may discuss the Amendment to it, in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), after 'ten', insert 'and three quarter'.

Mr. Marsh: I am anxious to maintain the happy atmosphere. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, this was his Amendment. One of the difficulties of being a Minister is that after listening to the debates in Committee, as I have learned in the last few weeks, the biggest crime one can commit is then to put down Amendments designed to meet some of the points raised. One does not get this criticism from the hon. Gentleman, who is outstanding in his reasonableness in these matters. This is one of a number of Amendments put down to meet points fairly raised during the debate.
One point raised in Committee was the very real problem involved in a reduction


of drivers' hours. This has faced us with two problems. On the one hand it is inconceivable that we could maintain this reduction without a degree of increased productivity that would pay, at least in part, for this reduction. The load on industry would be very considerable without this increased productivity. On the other hand, that being so, I came to the conclusion that this would put off the date by which we would get the reduction in hours which we all want. It therefore seemed reasonable to take this in two parts and to first move to 10 hours and subsequently move to nine hours.
I was surprised to learn of some reluctance or some doubts about the wisdom of even this initial reduction. We are dealing here not with motor cars but with heavy vehicles of 16 tons. As a motorist who had never driven a lorry I tended to think of driving lorries in much the same way as one drives motor cars. Only recently I had the opportunity of travelling in one of these vehicles, and I do not think that anyone who has travelled in a 16-ton lorry can be unconscious of the fact that it is a very different proposition from driving a comfortable, smooth, relatively small car. It is hard work: I sat next to a man whom I admired intensely, who was manipulating no fewer than 10 gears. There was a great deal of vibration and discomfort.
Drivers obviously get used to this sort of thing, but I cannot believe that one can argue that a man who is driving a vehicle of that type for 10 hours has not done a pretty solid day's work. I am well aware that the reductions in hours are not universally welcomed by drivers themselves, and one can appreciate the reasons. But to have a man on the road with that type of vehicle for a period much in excess of 10 hours is not something which many of us would wish to encourage.
We have heard a great deal today about the problems of the fishing industry and about various parts of the country; and no doubt there are problems presented by this change. All change produces problems. This is one of the great difficulties faced by the whole nation. We are, as a nation, unanimously in favour of change provided that we can all get written guarantees that it will

not affect us personally but some other chap. We are in favour of reducing a driver's hours, provided it does not cause us difficulties.
On the Continent there are European limits laid down in the draft E.E.C. regulations. At present they are talking of reducing the number of hours to nine, and French fish must be the same as English fish—and probably Scottish fish too.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the Common Market regulations allow for two days of longer duration?

Mr. Marsh: They allow for two days of longer duration, with a total of 10 hours, which is the proposal before us at present. We are talking of bringing our thinking into line with that of the Continent, and, if the Germans, the French and everyone else are thinking in this direction, although there may be arguments about whether we want to do it, I cannot really believe it is impossible for us to do it.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) fairly asked if there is really a correlation between dangerous driving, or danger in vehicles, and the number of hours. This argument derives from considerable research, on which I am not qualified to comment, but it is argued that there is a direct relation between fatigue and slower reaction times; and if the reaction times of the man driving a 16-ton lorry are at all slowed down at the end of a 10-hour day, we must try to overcome this menace. This will produce difficulties. We are changing the system. People are going to have to operate their industries in some cases in different ways.
Reference has been made to subsequent Amendments dealing with the provision for making exemptions. In all fairness I do not see these exceptions being used on a massive scale because there would be no purpose in having the regulations on the hours at all; but certainly there is provision, in the light of experience, for us to see where defined classes could if necessary be exempted. I firmly believe that a nine-hour driving day—and this is driving time—at the wheel of vehicles of such size is a desirable thing for Parliament to impose on


the industry. It cannot be achieved in one jump, and therefore we are doing it in two stages. The first stage is to ensure that the hours are reduced to 10, and to have discussions with the industry and the unions.
7.0 p.m.
There is increased productivity to be obtained in the industry, as we all know. It is not as easy to find as is sometimes suggested, and the ease of obtaining productivity deals tends to be a little oversimplified. I think that the provision is in the interests of the industry and the drivers, and I am convinced that it is in the interests of the mass of the public travelling on roads in company with vehicles of this sort. Therefore, we intend to reduce the hours to 10, when we have had discussions on how this can be achieved, and to take powers to make a further reduction to nine hours at some time in the future.
We must start from the acceptance that this involves difficulties for industry. It would be absurd to pretend that it did not. It means that people will have to adopt different working practices. There will be some inconvenience and probably some additional costs, though one hopes that this can be overcome with the co-operation of the men and the industry. But when we have looked at the evidence, not only in our country but in others, when we return to the point which I stressed, that we are talking about vehicles of 16 tons and above, I cannot believe that the House would think that a 10-hour driving day in one of those vehicles is not sufficient in terms of road safety.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Minister said, the Amendment shows a major concession compared with the original Bill. We pressed for it in Committee, together with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), and we are glad to see it.
As far as I can see there has been very little research on the question of fatigue in driving. The only real paper studying the question in depth seems to have been an article, "Fatigue in Driving", in a magazine called Ergonomics published way back in 1961. The Geddes Report on carriers' licensing pointed out that one of the real problems was that existing

statutory limits were often disregarded. It said that one of the major contributions we could make was a tightening up. As the Minister said, if the original proposal had gone forward a substantial increase in costs would have resulted. The Wiggins Teape pulp and paper mill, in which the Minister of State has a very real interest, estimated that the extra cost to it of the proposals could be about 14·9 per cent. The concession will reduce that.
We are concerned with the effect of the new proposals on drivers' earnings. The previous Minister said several times that she would not be satisfied unless drivers' wages were protected when hours of work were reduced. The Government said in the last page of the White Paper, The Transport of Freight:
Increased productivity will be the key factor and evidence of real progress towards this objective by both sides of the industry will be essential before the enabling powers are used to bring the new law into effect.
Could the Minister tell us what progress has been made and the extent to which progress is possible?
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) mentioned in the debate on the previous Amendment the problem of a fast run from Cornwall to London. It seems that in many instances the scope for increased productivity is not in the hands of the drivers. Many of the difficulties are congestion on the roads holdups at docks, and deliveries of goods to customers, none of which the driver can control.
Therefore it seems that in some cases there is not a great deal of scope for increased productivity, apart from faster driving. Would this be an effective contribution to the safety which the Minister said that he is aiming at? If there is a productivity agreement which allows for faster driving I wonder if this will be a real contribution to tackling the problem of fatigue which he has in mind.
Is it still the Minister's intention, as it was of the previous Minister, that drivers' wages should be protected when the changeover takes place? What progress has been made in this direction?

Mr. Stainton: I wholeheartedly accept the reduction in drivers' hours from 11 to 10. Whilst I intervened when the Minister of State, Scottish Office was speaking


to question whether he had statistics on fatigue, I do not think that statistics are called for to justify the reduction from 11 to 10. Ordinary observation is sufficient to justify it. But beyond that point there will be a very heavy onus on the Government to show that there is a correlation that would demand a further reduction, because there are very rapid improvements in the layout and comfort of driver's cabs and facilities in vehicles, and all these factors must be borne in mind.
The Minister rather misunderstood what I said in an intervention about the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). The hon. Gentleman quoted some traffic offences figures and the Minister appears to have understood the offences to have been dangerous driving. I understood them to have been offences in the broad and, rightly or wrongly, to have been largely to do with the non-observance of driving hours. I was trying to make the point that there was no necessary correlation between that statistic and what the Minister of State was trying to say. I hope that the Minister will not persist in holding this against me in terms of my attitude towards driving hours.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Minister has said that the change proposed would be only a temporary alteration, and that he hopes eventually to make the reduction to nine hours. I could not take part in the debate on the earlier Amendment, but I should like to mention the case of a region like Norfolk, most of which is situated 100 miles from its main markets. As a result, the normal day's journey— one might almost say the classic Norfolk journey—would be to go probably to London and complete the return trip with a back load in one day. That enables the vehicles to be well used and the driver to return home, and provides a very economic use of transport.
The difficulty is that it may become impossible to do that in a nine-hour driving day. It would almost certainly be impossible, depending on traffic conditions, and even with 10 hours it would be difficult where perhaps there must be several points of pick-up or delivery.
Fatigue has been mentioned as a cause of accidents. Equally, impatience can be a very great cause. Let us not under-

estimate the drivers' desire to end up at home after the day's work. The drivers feel strongly about this, as evidenced by the fact that one firm can get only one driver to say that he will definitely sleep away from home if the routine must be changed, and that is because he can stay with friends. I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously.
Much else could be argued, such as all the matters of cost. I hope that the Minister will really consider these points.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I certainly welcome this Clause if it will help us in obtaining a better standard of road safety. The reduction of hours from 11 to 10, and eventually to nine, is a good thing.
Speaking as one who does a considerable amount of driving, I find that tiredness is a factor contributory to some accidents. I suppose that most of us have had occasion to pull up on the side of the road because tiredness has overtaken us, and found that after five minutes' rest we feel we can go on. On the other hand, I can understand the action of a driver who, though he is tired, because he is also anxious to get home, will not do that, but will take the risk of driving on. Sometimes he will get away with it and sometimes he may not.
My only fear arises from a possibility which was brought to my attention by drivers employed in road haulage. Many of them, and even their wives and families, have a very great fear that a reduction in the hours may mean a reduction in the drivers' pay. Is there to be a reduction in their pay? They do not want an "Irishman's rise" as a result of the Bill. I can only hope that my right hon. Friend will do his utmost, when this Clause becomes law, to ensure that every effort will be made to see that the drivers will not, as a result, suffer a reduction in their pay. I hope that my right hon. Friend, with the industry, will ensure that there will be no "Irishman's rise" for the workers in the industry.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I think that we would all agree that to reduce the hours to 10 is a good thing, but we cannot disregard the point made by the Minister himself, that this will


inevitably put up costs, and at a time when we have to be competitive and it is essential that we should be competitive to keep our markets. It is within the Government's power to help, through the Selective Employment Tax and Excise duties, to minimise the increased costs.

Mr Marsh: I am not sure how far, Mr Speaker, you would allow me to reply to the last few comments.

Mr. Speaker: Not at all.

Mr. Marsh: I rather thought not.
Although this has been a short debate it has been a very good one and has shown a degree of acceptance by both sides of the public need. We really must go back to the question: what is this exercise about? If it is agreed—and I think that most hon. Members do agree —that driving lorries more than 10 hours a day is undesirable, then we have to accept the consequences which flow from that. The only way to meet the point is to accept that drivers shall drive those vehicles for not longer periods than those we are suggesting here.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Or make better roads into London.

Mr. Marsh: All right, but everybody has his own demands for road improvements. At the moment, and for some time to come, many of them will be concentrated on South-East London and Greenwich. But given the road system as it is, given all these problems, once we accept that we need this reduction in hours then consequences follow which I am not going to minimise.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), in the short part of his observation that was in order, said that this involves additional cost. How much, we do not know, but one estimate I saw, if the hours were reduced to nine, and if there were no increase in productivity, was between £20 and £30 million, an enormous sum. But I talked with the unions, I talked with the employers, and both sides told me that there is scope for increased productivity and that both sides were concerned to achieve it. I cannot believe that if they get together they cannot find a way out of this difficulty.
These hours are to be reduced. I agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) said. Naturally, we want to preserve the earnings of the men, but the proposal requires from the unions a recognition that to preserve the earnings with reduced hours they will have to adopt different practices.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: And the employers.

Mr. Marsh: I was coming on to them as well. As Minister of Transport one looks at employers and employees together and the job they have to do. But this is to happen and it is in the employers' and employees' interests that they find a way to minimise the cost of this proposal.
There is the question of fatigue, mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the medical evidence, which also he mentioned. It is a little strange that, with the only medically qualified member of the Government present beside me, I find myself dealing with this subject.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is he asleep?

Mr. Marsh: He is not asleep. He is thinking.
This study of fatigue is not of fatigue in driving vehicles; it has nothing to do with vehicles. All the medical evidence shows, from doing tests, that people's reaction times are slower when they are tired than when they are not tired. The evidence of this has been with us all day. If, therefore, we accept that driving a vehicle of this size for 10 hours is tiring, we accept that there is potential danger, and if we accept that there is potential danger then we accept that we have to reduce the number of hours; and if we reduce the number of hours we have to accept the consequences which flow from that.
This means reorganisation. It means new methods. It means that the drivers and the employers should get together to find new ways to maintain their incomes. I am not suggesting that it is an easy job. We in the Ministry will certainly give all the help we can to help the two sides to reach what agreement they can.
The one thing which has emerged from this debate is that, however much we may


argue the difficulties, not one hon. Member dissents from the basic proposition that, if nothing else, what the Government are doing is right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 324, with which are listed Amendments No. 325 and No. 326, dealing with Cornwall and Devon, Scotland, and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Mr. John Pardoe: The Amendments in this group are merely probing Amendments. We have discussed the whole of this issue, and I think that we had a reasonable response from the Government. Therefore, I will not move them.

Mr. Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 331, in page 117, line 14, to leave out 'or (c)' and to insert '(c) or (d)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 339, in page 117, line 31, at end insert:
(d) if the driver is a company representative visiting customers' establishments and whose main employment is not driving, the working day shall not exceed fourteen hours.

Mr. Stainton: AmendmentNo. 331 paves the way for No. 339, Mr. Speaker, and it is upon the latter that I suggest that the attention of the House should be concentrated. The endeavour is to extend the provisos under subsection (3) of Clause 91 so as to let out commercial travellers who might be driving vehicles which would fall within the definition of goods vehicles under Clause 90(2)(b)(ii), which reads:
motor vehicles (except those mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-section "—
these are heavy locomotives and various other types of heavy vehicle—
constructed or adapted to carry goods other than the effects of passengers.
It is possible that this definition would embrace pick-ups or station wagons and the like.
It might strike the House that the more direct way of attacking this situation would have been to table an Amendment to the definition of vehicles and to exclude specifically the pick-up or station wagon type of vehicle about which I have been talking. That endeavour was made in Committee and turned down by the

Government—most perversely, I thought —with the argument that, if one included commercial representatives and others who have to carry tools and equipment around with them in small vehicles which are probably not private cars, but similar to them, there would be a logical argument for extending driving hours restriction to all persons driving private cars. Rather than encounter another Scottish solecism, we have decided to tackle the manner in the form now put forward.
Amendment No. 339 would provide that, if a driver is a company representative visiting customers' establishments, and whose main employment is not driving, the working day shall not exceed 14 hours. Although my name is attached to the Amendment and I must, therefore, take full responsibility, I am not entirely proud of it. I make that point deliberately because I expect that part of the Government's reply will contain drafting objections. But I hope that we shall have the spirit of the exchange rather than the detail.
The Bill has still to run its course and there is plenty of time to take up any defects which may be detected in the form of wording. I am not happy about the reference to "company representative". What is that? One might say that it is a commercial traveller or a travelling man, or—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not amend his own Amendment.

Mr. Stainton: I was endeavouring to adduce arguments to identify the relative strength of the Amendment.
I was about to suggest that some hon. Members may think that there are other classes of persons, such as veterinary surgeons or farm managers or farm mechanics, who merit consideration on this basis. Having said that, I am prepared to rest my case at this stage on No. 339 as it stands, but despite my reservations about the wording I fully intend to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the matter to a Division should the spirit of the suggestion not be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that No. 331 is a paving Amendment to No. 339. I would allow a Division on No. 339 if requested.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I support the Amendment. The Clause deals with a larger class than commercial travellers. In Committee, in connection with another Amendment, I drew attention to a report by the Traders' Transport Association, published in October, 1959. The report was not considered enough in 1959. Nor has it been considered enough since. It contained a number of valuable pieces of information.
It was a survey of members organisations holding "C" licences. It asked why they held "C" licences. The survey published the percentages of reasons given as to why members of the Association chose forms of road transport rather than rail. One of the surprising disclosures was that 32 per cent. of those questioned said that they preferred to use road transport because they required their travellers to solicit orders and collect cash.
If a man is largely employed on that sort of occupation, it goes much further than the job of the commercial traveller as we commonly know him, and there must be a considerable number of drivers of vehicles spending a great deal of their time in soliciting orders and collecting cash. I take it that that sort of person would be covered by the Amendment. This point should be borne in mind. One is apt to assume that there is no connection between commercial travellers and the haulage industry, but there is a connection between persons employed to collect cash and solicit orders and drivers of all commercial vehicles.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I draw attention to the anomalies which may arise, unless an Amendment of this kind is accepted, in the case of people like farm fitters, not employed by farms but by agricultural engineers, who have to do a lot of servicing, and also in the case of anyone on a farm whose job is not normally that of driving. If such a person drives more than four hours in one day, which may easily happen, for the remainder of the week he becomes classified as a driver and his total working hours are controlled accordingly, so that he cannot carry on with his ordinary job.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope that I shall restore the harmony which appears to have been breached by the hon. Member

for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who threatened the Government with a vote if we did not respond in the spirit of his Amendment. I say first to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) that I am not sure whether or not these Amendments would cover the class of persons he spoke about. I think that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge would agree that this kind of person should not be left uncovered by the Amendments, however. One has to be sure technically of what one is doing in an Amendment if it is to cover all the classes desired under the revised arrangements which my right hon. Friend has agreed to.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge testified—that is the only word one can use—he witnessed to this assembly, his anxiety to be counted among those who favoured the reduction to 10 hours. He was one of the company who wanted the 10-hour change. If that is true, it means, under the revised rules, and taking the initial spread-over—12½ hours—that the commercial traveller or representative would be working from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m.

Mr. Stainton: That is not acceptable.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Mabon: Then we part company. We will have a Division if that is the case. It seems to us that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition in the generality. I emphasise this, because it is a general Amendment not a specific one. The hon. Gentleman may say later that he did not mean it to be as general as this, but wanted it to be more specific, as did the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill).
The hon. Gentleman's example can be covered by the previous discussion about amending subsection (9); and if we reach Government Amendment No. 346 we may discuss this further. There are specific cases that we could make exemption for under that subsection. But when we are arguing a general case, and I am treating this Amendment as a general case, and we are being asked to exempt a substantial class of people, it would be a major concession. The figure in 1959 for commercial representatives was 32 per cent., and this is a very large one.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The figure was 32 per cent. of those asked to make the return. All were "C" licence holders. It is not 32 per cent. of all vehicles on the road.

Dr. Mabon: I accept that, but it is a still substantial class. I am told that to meet the point of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge would be a substantial concession. This would nullify the attempt by the Government to make drivers' hours sensible, even if the drivers concerned were only those who solicited orders and carried out other duties.
If we go to the second stage of the reduction in hours, it means that the same people could be working from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and within the generality, this is a perfectly sensible and sound proposal. We are trying to get the best possible situation between employer and employee. We are trying both not to upset arrangements, and, at the same time, make improvements. If we were to make a major change of the kind proposed here we would nullify this attempt to improve the circumstances of people, and to reduce danger on the road.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Everyone will be disappointed by the Minister's reply. He tried in some way to compare the man driving a very large lorry with the

man engaged in business, who, on particular days, might have to work for a long time. The Minister knows that a commercial traveller operating in the Highlands of Scotland may, on two days of the week, work for a longer period than usual to carry out his work. We have assured the Minister on the previous Amendment that we support the generality of the intention behind this part of the Bill, but if it is the Government's intention to impose these rules inflexibly then our co-operation may have been misplaced.

It is because we are concerned, because men engaged in business all over the country are concerned, about the dangers of an inflexible situation, and because they feel that flexibility by regulation-making is inadequate, that we will have to register our opinion by dividing. For technical reasons, I suppose that we will have to divide on Amendment No. 331.

Mr. Speaker: For procedural reasons the Amendment which we must divide on, if we are to divide, is No. 331.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 248.

Division No. 195.]
AYES
[7.36 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Fortescue, Tim


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon
Fatter, Sir John 


Astor, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Clark, Henry
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clegg, Walter
Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Barber, Rt. Hn, Anthony
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Glyn, Sir Richard


Batsford, Brian
Corfield, F. V.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cunningham, Sir Knox

Grant, Anthony


Beasel, Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bitten, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Biggs-Davison, John
Dance, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hall-Davit, A. G. F.


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Body, Richard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bossom, sir Cilve
Dodds-Parker, Douglas 
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Braine, Bernard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Brewis, John
Eden, Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hay, John


Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Elliott. R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Higgins, Terence L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Farr, John
Hiley, Joseph


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, J. E. B.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holland, Philip




Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Silvester, Frederick


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George


Hornby, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hunt, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Speed, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stainton, Keith


Iremonger, T. L.
Murton, Oscar
Stodart, Anthony


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Nott, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pardoe, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kirk, Peter
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kitson, Timothy
peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lambton, viscount
Peyton, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pounder, Rafton
Wall, Patrick


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
price, David (Eastleigh)
Webster, David


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pym, Francis
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Lubbock, Eric
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


Maddan, Martin
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Worsley, Marcus


Maginnis, John E.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wylie, N. R.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Russell, Sir Roland
Younger, Hn. George


Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Jasper More and


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharpies, Richard
Mr. Anthony Royle.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Albu, Austen
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foley, Maurice


Alldritt, Waiter
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John



Allen, Scholefield
Cronin, John
Fowler, Gerry


Archer, Peter
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Reginald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Gardner, Tony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrett, W. E.


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood 
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gregory, Arnold


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Binns, John
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bishop, E. S.
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)


Blackburn, F.
Dell, Edmund
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hamling, William


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dewar, Donald
Hannan, William


Booth, Albert
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Dickens, James
Haseldine, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dobson, Ray
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brooks, Edwin
Driberg, Tom
Hooley, Frank


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunn, James A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howie, W.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Eadie, Alex
Hoy, James


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edelman, Maurice
Huckfield, Leslie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Ellis, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Ennals, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ensor, David
Hunter, Adam


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, John


Chapman, Donald
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Coe, Denis
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Coleman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)







Janner, Sir Barnett
Mikardo, Ian
Shaw, Arnold (llford, s.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Millan, Bruce
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elyetan (Cardiganshire)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, Alfred (Wytheshawe)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Slater, Joseph


Judd, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Small, William


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Moyle, Roland
Snow, Julian


Lawson, George
Neal, Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Ledger, Ron
Newens, Stan
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lee, John (Reading)
Norwood, Christopher
Stonehouse, John


Lector, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lomas, Kenneth
Orme, Stanley
Swain, Thomas


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Swingler, Stephen


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Symonds, J. B.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Taverne, Dick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


McBride, Neil
Park, Trevor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McCann, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thornton, Ernest


MacColl, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tinn, James


MacDermot, Niall
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Urwin, T. W.


Macdonald, A. H.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Pentland, Norman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wellbeloved, James


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Whitlock, William


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Randall, Harry
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rankin, John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reynolds, G. W.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mallalieu, J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Manuel, Archie
Richard, Ivor
Winnick, David


Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Marquand, David
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Woof Robert


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Yates, Victor


Maxwell, Robert
Roebuck, Roy



Mayhew, Christopher
Rose, Paul
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:



Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Harry Gourlay and




Mr. Joseph Harper.

Mr. Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 332. in page 117, line 15, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 333, in page 117, line 15, at end insert:
'except in the case of a driver of a passenger vehicle who may work for fourteen hours if he is engaged in driving a passenger service vehicle for a distance in excess of one hundred and fifty miles provided he has twenty-four hours off duty within every seven days working week '.

Mr. Stainton: The objects behind these two Amendments are three-fold. The first is to ascertain somewhat more clearly what the Minister had in view when he addressed the Committee on 25th April. There were some obscurities in terms of the total spread and in terms of the Government's intentions. The Minister said:
I propose also to take power to reduce the 11-hour basic requirement, so that at a later date it will be possible to reduce the

11-hour working day itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 25th April, 1968: c. 2861.]
If these Amendments merely serve the purpose of throwing some light on that expression we shall be delighted.
The second objective is perhaps novel in terms of exchanges either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I have no doubt that this must have crossed the Minister's mind in framing this legislation and bringing forward various Amendments. The Government are tackling the drivers' fatigue and the overall employment position under two separate headings: first, the driving hours, and secondly, the total span of the working day. There are rest periods and various other factors, but I think that one should concentrate upon these two points.
We heartily support the initial reduction from 11 to 10 hours in driving time. This was made clear in our early discussions on subsection (1) of the Clause. However, we suggest, if only to get the Minister's reaction, that we should move


rather more slowly in terms of the reduction of the working day. We feel that this makes a lot of sense. More cautious movement in terms of the working day will not have the direct impact on fatigue and associated matters that driving hours has. Yet it will allow the operator some flexibility for the time being. This is not a plea that one should so drag one's feet on the total working day that, in the event, nothing is achieved. We are saying that, compared with the reduction in drivers' hours from 11 to 10—and we are grateful that it is 10, not 9, at this stage—we should move more slowly in terms of the total working day. I am sure that this will confer considerable additional flexibility on the transport operator.
There is enormous virtue in this suggestion. The word "flexibility" comes tripping off one's lips. Of itself it has no virtue, but we have to be flexible to cope with a variety of permutations constantly changing the transport world. I believe, however, that its content is even more profound in the context of productivity, about which the Minister was speaking. Much of the improvements in productivity are likely to come not so much on the loading and unloading as at either end, and while it is quite easy to demonstrate that one is opposed to reducing drivers' hours, if a man gets into the cab of a heavy vehicle in London and goes to Glasgow that will absorb his whole working day and he cannot go faster so that there is no improvement in productivity. We hear this kind of argument up and down the country, but it is a very partial one. The reality is what happens in regard to loading, unloading and turning round.
It is on this count that I would plead with the Minister to take heed of our proposals in terms of going more slowly on the working-day front than on the reduction in actual working hours at the wheel. If he will take heed of this I believe he will make more progress and can have a much more friendly and realistic impact, not just on the transport industry but on industry as a whole, which is bound up with transport. If he can talk in these terms he will make friends rather than enemies. We propose, therefore, that the 11 hours proposed for the working day should be increased to

12 and that the overall time should run from 12½ hours to 13 hours.
The third objective behind these two Amendments has particularly to do with public transport. I do not need to say much on that aspect because it was ventilated very fully in Committee. The Government Amendment which we are to discuss shortly, No. 344, has some impact on this situation, but if one can half assume it in one's mind we are still concerned with the impact which these proposals could have on the public transport situation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) quoted in Committee, the Association of Chambers of Commerce pointed out that the manning of public bus services up and down the country is deficient by between 10 and 15 per cent. and that if the overall time span of 12½ hours proposed is adhered to this 10 to 15 per cent. is almost certain to become 15 to 20 per cent. This kind of evidence is eloquently supported in Report No. 50 of the Prices and Incomes Board on bus services and payment to bus drivers. This refers to Yorkshire-Humberside where there is a deficiency of no less than 15 per cent.; and I am informed, by quite independent advice—this is not from the Prices and Incomes Board report —that if the existing 14½ hours overrun is reduced to 12½ hours a further 283 drivers will be required in Birmingham at a cost of £320,000 a year. If a further 283 bus drivers are not recruited, this can only mean that at peak time those buses will not be operating on the roads.
For these three reasons I commend these two Amendments for the attention and support of the House.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Several accusations have been made about me this afternoon and, in particular, I have appeared to hon. Gentlemen opposite to know more about their constituency problems than they do. I would respectfully suggest that had the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) read the 1933 Road Traffic Act, he would certainly know more about it than he has shown the House he knows tonight; because instead of proposing to bring down the number of drivers' hours, he is actually putting forward a proposal


for a working day one hour longer than the 1933 Act provided, which I find utterly fantastic coming from an hon. Member for whom many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have great respect. I would hardly call it beneficial to employer or employee to come to the House and propose an increase in the number of drivers' hours when we are actually putting forward a proposal for a deduction of one hour on the 1933 Road Traffic Act. I suggest that before coming to the House in future the hon. Gentleman should at least read the appropriate Act.
Having looked at his spread-over proposals, I find myself more in sympathy with him on this point, because at the moment we have a 14-hour spread-over and under the new proposal of my right hon. Friend we shall in future have a spread-over of 12½ hours. I can appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman has made, that because of the great amount of time that is spent up and down the country waiting at docks, warehouses, wholesale premises, power stations and elsewhere, there may be some need for a longer spread-over period. But as my right hon. Friend has said, it is in these particular sectors of a driver's day that we have the greatest scope for productivity increases. This is precisely why he has proposed to slow down the implementation of this reduction in the number of permitted drivers' hours.
I would suggest to the Eon. Gentleman that the arguments he has advanced against bringing down the spread-over period to 12½ hours are not all that watertight when we compare them with the facts of the situation; but I must admit that my own feeling on this whole question of drivers' hours leads me to favour having more flexibility. At the present time there is a terrific amount of flexibility simply because the present regulations of drivers' hours are not enforced. This in itself gives tremendous flexibility to any operator or driver who wants it. But we are told that in future we shall work on the basis of tachographs in the back of the cabin, driver's control books and increased roadside spot checks, and because of such things one can presume that the regulations will be more fairly enforced.

Mr. Stainton: They will come with a bang.

Mr. Huckfield: I am not quite sure that they will come with such a bang, because if we wanted to introduce the tachograph overnight the simple fact preventing that is that we have not enough clocks. But even when these new drivers' hours are enforced and even bearing in mind the concession which my right hon. Friend has gracefully made, I would have thought more flexibility was needed. I would prefer the American system which states that basically a driver is not allowed to drive for more than 10 hours after he has had eight hours rest; and he must not drive more than two hours after he has been more than 13 consecutive hours on duty. On duty time includes all other things, including having spent time in a sleeping berth on the vehicle. Sleeping berths on vehicles are not permitted in this country though they are in most European countries. I would have liked to have seen some study of such things by my right hon. Friend, because the point at which the hon. Gentleman is trying to get in these two Amendments is the basic problem we have in this country of the typical journey being just a little longer than the time allowed for one day but not really long enough for the time which will be allowed for two days.
As I see it, this is the basic problem we have always had with drivers in this country. We need a little longer time for the driver to work than he is permitted in one day as defined in the regulations. I would urge the hon. Gentleman to think again on his Amendment, because he is not bringing down the number of drivers' hours as defined by the working day but increasing them. I urge that he should look again at the spreadover period which he has suggested, because it is in the ancillary activities connected with driving that we find the greatest scope for increases in productivity.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that there are varying reactions to his speeches. The reason for some is that in Committee six of these eight important Clauses were not discussed at all because of the guillotine.


Since we have only half an hour left, it seems that the same will happen now. It is because he has contributed a good deal on a subject in which he is greatly interested.
Having regard to the new Common Market draft regulations, could the Minister say whether the proposals in the Bill will conform with them? I understand that they do not and that my hon. Friend's suggestion is more in line with them. Would he bear in mind the special problems of certain isolated industries and commercial activities? An important case which was mentioned in Committee is that of the Electrical Sign Manufacturers Association, who transport electrical signs to shops and elsewhere and then return. Since driving is not a main part of their activity, they need a good spread-over. An important point is that the building industry, because of its seasonal activities and the fact that it works shorter days in the winter, works longer hours in summer. Will provision be made in the regulations for this important industry?
On municipal transport, there is a problem, in that the Minister is about to make an important concession to bring many matters into the same field as the concession already made for passenger transport. He should bear in mind the desperate situation, because of the shortage of drivers, for instance, which faces transport authorities. If the spread-over is introduced in this form, to provide the same services, some authorities would have to find more drivers, who may not be available. It is because we are looking for this flexibility that I hope that the Minister can give my hon. Friend the assurances which he wants.

Mr. Marsh: There is a tendency for some hon. Members to suggest that, provided one fixes the time for which a man may drive or work around his vehicle, it does not matter how long the spreadover is. There is no specific, provable figure of what the length should be, but we start with the assumption that a man should not drive after too long a working day. We are talking about a 12½ hour day. I know that this creates difficulties. I accept that a great deal can be done at both ends of the journey and that, although this is not actually

in the Bill, and is not the first thing to be negotiated between unions and employers, it is still a real problem, particularly in relation to ports—but I will not push that subject too far. At any rate, there is a great deal of scope here.
We all start from the assumption that it is wrong, in modern conditions—this would not be disputed—for a driver to be at the wheel too many hours, however many hours that may be. As I said in Committee, when the rules are first introduced, drivers of goods vehicles and passenger vehicles will, subject to their being at least one and a half hours off duty during the day, be able to spread their 11 hours' work over a period of 12½.
That is not an unreasonable proposition. A 12½ hour working day is pretty long for anyone who is wise enough not to come into Parliament, where it is regarded as the normal practice. But we start from the assumption that it is reasonable to cut down to 12½ hours, and we have said that we will cut down to 11 hours subsequently when we have found out more about the situation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned the European Economic Community. The E.E.C. rules are still being discussed, though I understand that the length of the working day proposed is 13 hours. We say 12½. There are also a number of differences about how this is to be introduced—but we seem to be arguing about a fairly narrow point.
As for Amendment No. 332, the working day can, under the 1960 Act, be spread over 14 hours, and the driver must have 10 continuous hours rest in every 24—starting from when he begins work. Therefore, although his number of working hours in connection with a vehicle and its load is limited to 11, there is no further limit on the length of the whole working day. One cannot accept that an extension to that would be desirable.
Another point was whether there could be exemptions for spreadovers in certain cases. It would be unfair to mislead the House here, because it would be stupid to go through all this travail and then produce exemptions on just about everything. That would mean that one might as well not have started on the Bill. We have written into Clause 91(3) provision for exemptions. I will not define them at


this stage, nor would it be fair for me to lead the House to assume that they would cover vast numbers of people. However, where there are particular problems, we will be able to consider them. The building industry is an example of an area in which the Minister could—I stress, "could"—if he wanted, in the light of representations, make exemptions.
On public service vehicles, I do not think that the spread-over should be extended to the point of allowing men still to be driving 13 hours after they began. These people carry considerable responsibilities and I would have preferred to stick to the simple rule of a maximum 11 hour working day. I make no secret of this, because it is not desirable that such men should still be working after 13 hours. But we must accept the real problems which are caused by shortage of drivers and by the need for split shifts within the industry.
We have had discussions on this and although, in the early stages of those consultations, the bus operators were troubled—there is no point in denying it —at the spread-over being restricted to 11½ hours, this was not an aspect which they pressed particularly strongly. The scheduling adjustments will, of course, have to be made to fit in with a 12½ hour spread-over, but there is no evidence of any insuperable obstacle to this requirement. As I Aid, the unions would be strongly opposed to any extension beyond 12½ hours. While I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has raised some of the problems which are faced when one begins to legislate in this sphere, the Government cannot agree with the increases which are requested. We have a degree of flexibility in the power to make exemptions. One would assume that those exemptions would be made in the light of experience, but there is no point in using those exemption procedures to an extent which would make nonsense of the whole legislation.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Minister mentioned procedures in the construction industry. Would he allow operations which must conform to nature, such as farming and horticulture, to receive special consideration, and would he give an assurance that he will have consultations with the National Farmers' Union on many of these points?

Mr. Marsh: It is the experience on both sides of the House that consultations with the National Fanners' Union are a regular feature. The purpose of the exemption Clause is to enable us, in the light of experience, to make adjustments. A classic example is the delivery of the Christmas mail. This might give rise to an exceptional circumstance which must be coped with. Where a case can be made out—and given that this will be rare—the procedure is included for the Minister to be convinced of the difficulties.

Mr. Stainton: We intended to take this to a Division, but time is pressing. We are disenchanted with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The principal point to emerge is the reduction of the working day and the spread-over. As the Bill stands, the reduction in the working day would be fractionally more than the reduction in driving time. I wish to put the emphasis the other way round. Had we had a 5 per cent. reduction in the working day compared with a 10 per cent. reduction in driving time, the situation would have been a lot happier.
I appreciate the Minister's problems. To precipitate a change like this is extremely difficult and one realises that, in enforcing such a change, there is difficulty in bringing about increased productivity. I am disappointed that the Minister has not given more flexibility on the question of the working day and, on that note, we must let the matter rest.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker: With the next Amendment, No. 343, we could take also Amendment No. 335, in page 117, line 19, leave out 'stage carriages' and insert 'public service vehicles, and Amendment No. 336, in line 19, after 'carriages', insert:
'or a furniture removal vehicle (being a vehicle engaged in removing the household personal or office furniture belonging to a member of the public'.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 334, in page 117, line 17, to leave out from the beginning to 'be' in line 20.
The Minister, in Committee on 25th April, made an announcement that he would make this Amendment and accordingly we do so now. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart


(Mr. Edward M. Taylor) anticipated the debate by welcoming this Amendment.
Since the Opposition were agreeable to Amendment No. 334, No. 335 will perhaps fall with No. 336, if I am not assuming too much. The Minister said he would make the change in two stages. The effect of this Amendment will be to apply the spreadover of 12½ hours in the working day, as at present permitted in Clause 91(3)(b) for persons driving one or more stage carriages to drivers of all kinds of vehicles to which Part VI applies.
8.15 p.m.
This Amendment gives effect to the Minister's intention to allow, as an interim measure, the working day for lorry drivers to spread over 12½ hours, instead of, as at present, 14 hours, so long as they are not actually on duty for more than 11 hours during that time. Reducing the working day for lorry drivers from the present limit of 14 hours to 11 hours in one step would take somewhat longer than if the change were effected in two steps because of the need to work out productivity agreements. The Amendment would enable the first stage towards the eventual full reduction to be made more quickly. Powers to modify or remove this concession by Order will be provided by Government Amendment No. 353 which seeks to amend Clause 91(11).
The House may recall the statement to the Committee in which he proposes
At the second stage, these 12½ hours arrangements should cease except in the special case of stage bus operations, where there is the particular problem of carrying peak traffic at both ends of the day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 25th April, 1968; c. 2861.]
He proposed to take powers to reduce the 11-hour working day itself although there are no proposals for this at the present time.
This major Amendment makes unnecessary the two succeeding Amendments, Nos. 335 and 336. I hope the Opposition will agree that we should make the Amendment No. 334 and we can leave the other two Amendments aside.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: We are, of course, grateful to the Government for this concession and because of this Amendments No. 335 and 336 are not

necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) has fought solidly for that industry in Committee and the hon. Member who so ably put forward the case will be glad that the concession has been made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 337, in page 117, line 21, leave out 'equal to' and insert 'not less than'.
This is another of the Amendments which arose out of the discussion in Committee. No doubt at any moment hon. Gentlemen are going to apologise for all the trouble they have given about the additional Amendments put down. This is put down to meet the arguments made in Committee. It is an Amendment which contains my signature as well as that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).
It is basically a drafting Amendment and of course the conditions which we were trying to get at are satisfied if drivers are off duty for a period longer than the amount by which the period of duty exceeds 11 hours as well as if they are off duty for a period exactly equal to that amount.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 342, in page 118, line 5, leave out "sixty" and insert "sixty-six".
I will say just a few words on this matter because I know that some of my hon. Friends are anxious to take part in this debate. The Government briefly have made some major concessions so far as driving time is concerned and so far as the working day is concerned, and we are grateful. We would like to take some of the credit for this because these are our Amendments which we proposed in Committee.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member is now being convinced, in fact, that it was a mistake to criticise the Government for putting down these Amendments of which he is so appreciative now.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: Now the Minister is being foolish. While we are grateful when the Minister brings forward sensible Amendments which answer some of the points we raised in Committee, it is another


thing for the Government to use the scarce time available to us to bring in new matters and material. We saw this happen earlier this week. It happened in Committee, when the scarce time we had for discussing important legislation was eaten up.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: What has all this to do with drivers' hours?

Mr. Taylor: That remark is typical of the hon. Member, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We have very little time in which to discuss important matters and he makes irrelevant interruptions.
The Minister has made concessions on driving time and the working day. It seems logical that some move should now be made on the total number of hours in the working week. We have suggested 66 hours instead of 60, and we have done this after careful consultation with industry and commerce. This change is necessary for flexibility to exist and so that industry can take account of the concessions which have been made. In view of those concessions, I hope that the Government, who have admitted that our observations in Committee were in many instances valid, will accept this Amendment to add some much-needed flexibility into the proposed new system.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have listened with interest to the discussion of Amendments dealing with the working day and I suggest that it is important for us now to consider the working week. Some industries have already been mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, the construction industry is vitally important and often requires its labour force to work longer hours than other industries. To increase the hours as the Amendment. suggests would give the industry a greater degree of flexibility and enable it to take advantage of the conditions under which it must work.
Other industries are equally important in this respect. I particularly have in mind industries whose vehicles must wait for considerable periods, usually without the drivers having to work. For example, in the livestock haulage industry, particularly in some rural areas, drivers have long waiting periods at sales at certain times of the year. The same is true of the timber trade. Much time is often

devoted to loading, particularly in forestry areas. The driver is not necessarily involved in driving or working at these times—he is not engaged in any-type of fatiguing work—and the greater flexibility which the Amendment would give would be to the advantage of the industry.
This flexibility is also vital in the retail trade. It is required particularly at holiday times, when the work of regular staff is done by others. At times of sickness and emergency this flexibility is needed to enable the retail trade to operate easily. A later Amendment—because of the Guillotine it will probably not be discussed—is concerned with the retail milk trade, an example of an industry in which flexibility is vital and for which a lengthening of the working week would enable it to cope with the emergencies that arise. I have had experience of this trade, which serves the public and does its best to get milk to the doorstep each morning. At times of sickness, holidays and emergency the flexibility which the Amendment would provide is vital.

Mr. James Bennett: The Guillotine falls indiscriminately and will no doubt fall on a later Amendment which stands in my name. If I endeavoured to discuss that Amendment I would be out of order. Listening to the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and bearing in mind what was said earlier about drivers being at the wheel for 13 hours—and how it was asking too much of any man, driving or otherwise, to work that number of hours—it seems that even if my later Amendment were called I could not press it, since if hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way people would have no spare time to undertake any form of additional employment.
After all that has been said about drivers' hours, and how we should do our best to enable drivers to live reasonable lives, I trust that this and similar Opposition Amendments will be smartly thrown out of the window.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: When drivers are working an average of 58·9 hours a week —while people in most other industries have already achieved a 40-hour week— and when the road haulage industry is obliging 40 per cent. of drivers to work more than 60 hours a week, it is fantastic


that hon. Gentlemen opposite should now be claiming a 66-hour week for road haulage. This is absolutely shocking.
At a time when drivers at Banbury, as we saw last week, are able to go on strike for a guaranteed 68-hour week, I am beginning to wonder what type of industry hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. The main reason for the pitifully low basic wage in the haulage industry is the very long working week. The sooner that this basic working week is reduced, the better.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends have been referring not to the hours worked, but to the time spent sitting at the wheel, waiting in queues and so on?

Mr. Huckfield: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks and read the Bill he would have appreciated the difference between working time and spread-over time. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are seriously arguing for a 66-hour week for the road haulage industry, that is nothing short of shocking.

Mr. Marsh: As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has vividly pointed out, there is a major difference of opinion between the two sides which stems from a different philosophy. It is clear that the Amendment would permit a driver to be on duty for 66 hours a week instead of the proposed 60 hours. Shaftesbury must be turning in his grave. If there is to be a Division on this issue, I welcome it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are arguing that because the new provisions allow a working day of 11 hours and prescribe one rest day a week, these perfectly reasonable hours should be 11 multiplied by six, giving a 66-hour working week.

They get the argument the wrong way round. We start from the other end of the argument. We start from the assumption in the Bill that 60 hours a week as a working week is not very progressive. In 1968, it seems not unreasonable to write such a provision into the Bill. As the Minister responsible for it, I find some difficulty in whipping up enthusiasm. I find myself defending, as a wild red revolutionary, the proposition that in 1968 men should be restricted to a 60-hour working week, when it is argued by the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who is supposedly the embodiment of modern Toryism, that it should be 66 hours a week. It is a first-rate issue on which to have a Division.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has totally distorted what we on this side of the House say. We were not in any circumstances suggesting that men should work 66 hours, hour in and hour out. We were suggesting the flexibility which will make this legislation work. The Minister must be aware of the practical problems which are already being faced in the building industry and in milk distribution, in trying to cope with the kind of legislation which is being rushed through by the Government. This is yet another dreadful example of how this shocking and shameful shovelling through of legislation by the Government—

lt being half-past Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 245.

Division No. 196.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullus, Sir Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Astor, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Campbell, Gordon


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Body, Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cary, Sir Robert


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Chichester-Clark, R.


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Bernard
Clark, Henry


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Clegg, Walter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooke, Robert


Bell, Ronald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Corfield, F. V.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardynle, J.
Costain, A. P.


Bessell, Peter
Bryan, Paul
Crouch, David


Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith,Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Crowder, F. P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Cunningham, Sir Knox




Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, C. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Royle, Anthony


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Roland


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sharples, Richard


Fair, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric
Silvester, Frederick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Speed, Keith


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stodart, Anthony


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Teeling, Sir William


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Wall, Patrick


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Webster, David


Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hay, John
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hiley, Joseph
Pardoe, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mill, J.E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Holland, Philip
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Hordern, Peter
Peyton, John
Wylie, N. R.


Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner



Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.






NOES


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard


Albu, Austen
Brooks, Edwin
Cronin, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dalyell, Tarn


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Archer, Peter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Ifor (Cower)


Barnes, Michael
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bence, Cyril
Cant, R. B.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Neil
Delargy, Hugh



Binns, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dell, Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dempsey, James


Blackburn, F.
Chapman, Donald
Dewar, Donald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coe, Denis
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Coleman, Donald
Dickens, James


Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.
Dobson, Ray


Boyden, James
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Doig, Peter


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Driberg, Tom







Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Randall, Harry


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rankin, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rees, Merlyn


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ellis, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor


Ensor, David

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John
Roebuck, Roy


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James
Rose, Paul


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Slater, Joseph


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, Julian


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield. E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marks, Kenneth
Stonehouse, John


Hamling, William
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hannan, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher
Swingler, Stephen


Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.
Symonds, J. B.


Hazell, Bert
Mikardo, Ian
Taverne, Dick


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Henig, Stanley
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tinn, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Tomney, Frank


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Varley, Eric G.


Howie, W.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hoy, James
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Jackson, Peter M, (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Winnick, David


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, Trevor
Woof, Robert


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Yates, Victor


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Harry Gourlay and



Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
 Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Eight o'clock.

Amendments made: No. 343, in page 118, line 6, leave out from 'hours' to end of line 13 and insert:
(5A) Subject to the provisions of this section, there shall be, in the case of each working week of a driver, a period of not less than twenty-four hours for which he is off duty, being a period either falling wholly in that

week or beginning in that week and ending in the next week; but—

(a) where the requirements of the foregoing provisions of this subsection have been satisfied in the case of any week by reference to a period ending in the next week, no part of that period (except any part after the expiration of the first twenty-four hours of it) shall be taken into account for the purpose of satisfying those requirements in the case of the next week; and
(b) those requirements need not be satisfied in the case of any working week of a driver who on each working day falling wholly or partly in that week drives one or more stage carriages if those requirements are satisfied in the case of the preceding or following working week of that driver,


being a week in which he drives one or more such carriages on each working day falling wholly or partly in that week.

No. 346, in line 38, leave out 'in exceptional circumstances' and insert:
' otherwise to meet a special need '.

No. 347, in line 41, leave out ' (5)' and insert ' (5A) '.

No. 348, in page 119, line 15, after ' may ' insert:
 enable any dispensation under paragraph (b)(i) of this subsection to be granted retrospectively and '.

No. 349, in line 19, leave out '(5)' and insert ' (5A) '.

No. 350, in line 29, after ' court' insert '(i)'.

No. 351, in line 32, at end insert:
'or
(ii) in the case of a person charged under paragraph (b) of this subsection, that the contravention was due to the fact that the driver had for any particular period or periods driven or been on duty otherwise than in the employment of that person or, as the case may be, otherwise than in the employment in which he is subject to the orders of that person, and that the person charged was not, and could not reasonably have become, aware of that fact'.

No. 353, in line 36, leave out from beginning to ' and ' in line 42 and insert:

(a) direct that subsection (1) of this section shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to ten hours of a reference to nine hours;

(b) direct that paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to eleven hours of a reference to any shorter period, or remove, modify or add to the provisions of that subsection containing exceptions to the said paragraph (a);

(c) remove, modify or add to any of the requirements of subsection (2), (4), (5) or (5A) of this section or any of the exemptions provided for by subsections (6), (7) and (8) thereof.

No. 355, in line 44, at end insert * including provisions amending any definition in section 98 of this Act which is relevant to any of the provisions affected by the order '.—[Mr. Marsh. ]

Clause 92

INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN VEHICLES

Amendment proposed: No. 363, in page 120, line 39, at end insert:
(4A) The owner of any vehicle in which equipment is installed for the purposes of this section shall preserve for the prescribed period any record produced by means of the equipment; and any person who fails to comply with this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100. —[Mr. Marsh. ]

Question put,  That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided:  Ayes 240, Noes 222.

Division No. 197.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Nell
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Albu, Austen
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eadle, Alex


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edelman, Maurioe


Alldritt, Walter
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Biston)


Allen, Scholefield
Coe, Denis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Ennals, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ensor, David


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, 8.W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Barness, Michael
Cronin, John
Faulds, Andrew


Bence, Cyril
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dalyell, Tam
Foley, Maurice


Bishop, E. S. 
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Forrester, John


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) 
Fowler, Gerry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boardman, H. (Leigh) 
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Strertord)
Freeson, Reginald


Booth, Albert
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boydsn, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gardner, Tony


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. 
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Brooks, Edwin
Delargy, Hugh
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dell, Edmund
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brown, R. W (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Buchan, Norman
Dickens, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter
Hamling, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Driberg, Tom
Hannan, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunn, James A.
Harper, Joseph


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Cant, R. B.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Haseldine, Norman




Hazell, Bert
MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Henig, Stanley
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) 
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) 
Roebuck, Roy


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Manuel, Archie
Rose, Paul


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marquand, David
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Howie, W.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hoy, James
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) 
Mendelson, J. J.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Slater, Joseph


Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Small, William


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Snow, Julian


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stonehouse, John


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Neal, Harold
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Newens, Stan
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) 
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Norwood, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Urwin, T. W.


Ledger, Ron
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, John (Reading)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Park, Trevor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wellbeloved, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Whitlock, William


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
 Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


McCann, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, s.)


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Winnick, David


MacDermot, Niall
Randall, Harry
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Macdonald, A. H.
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


McGuire, Michael
Rees, Merlyn
Wright, Esmond


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, Victor


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Mackintosh, John P.
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Cordon
Fortescue, Tim


Astor, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Foster, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Clark, Henry
Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Balnfiel, Lord
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, F. V.
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Cower, Raymond


Bessell, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Grant, Anthony


Biffen, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Grieve, Percy


Black, Sir Cyril
Daikeith, Earl 0f
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Blaker, Peter
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) 
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Asriford) 
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Braine, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brewis, John
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) 
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Paul
Emery, Peter
Hay, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Errington, Sir Eric
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Farr, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fisher, Nigel
Heseltine, Michael







Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sharples, Richard


Hiley, Joseph
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hill, J. E. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Silvester, Frederick


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George


Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Speed, Keith


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, Anthony


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Iremonger, V. L.
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Teeling, Sir William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Temple, John M.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kimball, Marcus
Pardoe, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kirk, Peter
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lambton, Viscount
Peyton, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pounder, Rafton
Wall, Patrick


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) 
 Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
prior, J. M. L.
Webster, David


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lubbock, Eric
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


MacArttiur, Ian
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Rhys Williams, 8ir Brandon
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McMaster, Stanley
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maddan, Martin
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maginnis, John E.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Royle, Anthony
Wylie, N. R.


Marten, Neil
Russell, Sir Roland
Younger, Hn. George


Maude, Angjs
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Timothy Kitson and




Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Clause 93

WRITTEN RECORDS

Amendments made: No. 366, in page 121, leave out lines 1 to 21 and insert:


(1) The Minister may make regulations—

(a) for requiring drivers to keep such books as may be specified in the regulations and to make in them entries with respect to such matters relevant to the enforcement of this Part of this Act as may be so specified; and
(b) for requiring owner-drivers and the employers of employee-drivers to maintain such registers as may be so specified with respect to any such books as aforesaid which are in their possession or in that of any employee-drivers in their employment.

(2) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and incidental provisions as the Minister thinks necessary or expedient, including in particular provisions—.

No. 369, in page 121, line 22, leave out ' such books ' and insert:
' books and registers required for the purposes of the regulations'.

No. 370, in page 121, line 28, at end insert:
(d) as to the issue by and return to the employers of employee-drivers of books required

to be kept by the latter for the purposes of the regulations.

No. 371, in page 121, line 30, leave out ' subsection (1) of this section ' and insert ' the regulations'.

No. 372, in page 121, line 31, after ' vehicle ' insert:
'as to the preservation of any books and registers used for those purposes'.

No. 373, in page 121, line 32, leave out from ' which' to ' are' in line 33 and insert ' those books and registers'.

No. 374, in page 121, line 34, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(e) for exemptions from all or any of the requirements of the regulations in respect of drivers of small goods vehicles as defined in section 98(5) of this Act and for other exemptions from all or any of those requirements.

No. 375, in page 122, line 1, leave out ' by or'.

No. 376, in page 122, line 8, leave out from second 'of to ' or' in line 10 and insert:
' regulations made under this section'.

No. 377, in page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'but a person shall not be liable to be convicted under this subsection on the ground that he has permitted another person to contravene any of those provisions if he proves to the court that he has taken reasonable steps to bring the requirements of that provision to the notice of that person and has from time to time taken reasonable steps to secure that that person is complying with those requirements'.

No. 378, in page 122, line 18, leave out 'subsection (1) of' and insert 'regulations under'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 94

PRESERVATION AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 380, in page 122, line 21, leave out subsection (1).

No. 332, in page 122, line 34, leave out first 'or' and insert 'regulations'.

No. 383, in page 122, line 36, leave out 'that section' and insert 'those regulations'.

No. 384, in page 122, line 37, leave out 'that section' and insert 'those regulations'.

No. 385, in page 122, line 40, leave out '(1) of this section' and insert:
'(4A) of section 92 of this Act or regulations under section 93 thereof.—[Mr. Marsh.]

No. 388, in page 123, line 28, leave out from 'with' to 'or' in line 29 and insert:
'any requirement under subsection (2) of this section'

No. 389, in page 123, line 35, leave out 'subsection (1) of this section' and insert 'section 92 of this Act'.

No. 390, in page 123, line 36, leave out 'such as is there mentioned ' and insert:
'kept for the purposes of regulations under section 93 thereof.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 97

APPLICATION TO THE CROWN AND APPLICATIONS TO THE CROWN AND EXEMPTIONS FOR POLICE

Amendments made: No. 393, in page 126, line 16, after ' police ', insert ' or fire brigade'.

No. 394, in page 126, line 17, at end insert:

'agriculture' has the meaning assigned by section 109(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947 or, in relation to Scotland, section 86(3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948;—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 98

INTERPRETATION, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS, ETC. FOR PART VI

Amendments made: No. 397, in page 127, line 32, leave out '93(4)' and insert '93(2)(e)'.

No. 398, in page 127, line 40, leave out 'lesser' and insert 'other'.

No. 399, in page 127, line 43, leave out 'lesser' and insert 'other'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 100

MAINTENANCE OF THE BOARD'S WATERWAYS

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 400, in page 129, line 13, leave out ' pleasure' and insert 'cruising'.
The Amendment was originally proposed by the hon. Member for South-gate (Mr. Berry). He suggested that "pleasure craft" had a different meaning in other enactments relating to inland waterways. He mentioned punts, dinghies, rowing boats, and so on, and said that it would be confusing to use the expression in a different sense in the Bill. I said that the expression was defined in the Bill and felt there was no fundamental reason for the suggested change.
However, I have given further consideration to the point, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has agreed that the point raised by the hon. Member has some validity. The term will also accord more happily with the expression "cruising waterways" and, on balance, the Government have decided it would be reasonable to make this Amendment. I thank the hon. Gentleman for having raised it in the first place.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am very surprised at the Government even going on with the Bill now that their majority has crumbled to 18. To avoid further votes, they are now accepting all our Amendments.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for drawing attention to the fact that I proposed an identical Amendment in Committee, and tried to explain the legal aspects. I did not convince the hon. Gentleman then, but I have since. Despite my powerful plea for the Amendment, the Minister of State said at the top of column 3028 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings:
It is in the Bill.
He said two-thirds of the way down:
It is in the Bill.
And in the last line he said:
The definition is in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 1st May, 1968; c. 3028.]
That must come very near to tedious repetition. However, it was not in the Bill, but as soon as I sit down it will be, and so I thank the Minister for proposing the; Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bessell: I beg to move Amendment No. 401, in page 129, line 16, leave out subsection (2).

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: One hopes that with this Amendment and its predecessor, now that we have arrived at Part VII, we have come to rather more tranquil territory.

The Amendment moved—

Mr. Bessell: Eloquently.

Dr. Winstanley: The Amendment moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is to leave out subsection (2). Those millions of people who have an interest in our inland waterways, whether by sailing on them, fishing in them or walking by them, have been disturbed a little by the possible implications of the subsection. During the past 12 months people concerned with waterways have gained some reassurance from some of the statements of the Ministry of Transport. The recently appointed advisory committee is reassuring. Many statements about waterways have allayed anxieties about the Government's possible intentions over waterways. But with the publication of the Bill there has been much anxiety about the precise intentions. Many people have thought that the Government might intend by the subsection to deny to the general public

in respect of waterways the rights of passage, safety and remedies through the courts which are available to road users. It is to provide for that anxiety that we have moved the Amendment. The subsection which it would delete seeks to remove from the Ministry of Transport a responsibility which has been carried by the Government, since the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, to maintain waterways.
Section 17,
Maintenance of canals by railway companies,
says:
Every railway company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works, and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water of the same so that the whole of such canal or part may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption or delay.
That comprehensive right was later supported in the Transport Act 1962. It is from those responsibilities it appears the Minister may be seeking to escape.
9.0 p.m.
It is right to make clear at once that no enthusiast for the inland waterways would wish to say to the Government that they must in all circumstances preserve all inland waterways for all time, but what we do say is that it is reasonable to preserve the right in respect of any intended closure to have public hearings and to have access to the courts. It is not the point of our Amendment to stop all possible closures in future, but we want to stop closures taking place without the ancient right; we do not want that ancient right to be abolished.
The closure of a canal or inland waterway is not a light matter. It is important to stress that we are not faced with an option merely of preserving or of doing away with an inland waterway, because we cannot merely leave an inland waterway to go into disuse, for that constitutes a danger; it constitutes dangers in many ways, and money is involved in either case. There is certainly money involved in putting a disused waterway back into a navigable, decent, safe condition, but there is also money involved in closing


a waterway. The Government are not in a position to say "We will not maintain this waterway and therefore we abandon it and let it rot", for then it will become a danger. If they are deciding to abandon a waterway they must take certain positive steps for its closure.
The implications of a closure are very considerable, and not merely for the leisure users, not merely for those who wish to sail boats. We have to remember that drainage and irrigation often depend on inland waterways. I shall not detain the House by depicting all the advantages of waterways, but they have immense values for commerce as well as for leisure. Then apart from their recreational value, there is the obvious wisdom of attracting people from the roads on to the water, and I do not think that will escape any of us. Moreover, waterway pastimes are pastimes which a family as a whole can enjoy. Waterways offer diverse recreations, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite are all aware of the immense social value and significance of our inland waterways.
We cannot just close them and do nothing, The passage of boats along a waterway is important because once the locks cease to be used the water becomes stagnant and the canal will then rapidly fall into disuse and then it will become overgrown. The possibility of navigation is one of the reasons for maintaining a waterway in good order, because navigation maintains the circulation of the water, and once the waterway ceases to function it rapidly falls into disuse, with the attendant dangers and waste.
This is a matter which, I know, concerns many hon. Members, and they have tabled many Amendments, and there is a later Amendment affecting waterways in my own constituency about which I have had consultation with the hon. Gentleman, but I think it better to leave that point till later. Then there is also the Minister's Amendment about court procedure. I cannot, in advance, say precisely what this means—not till we have heard his observations upon it.
What I do say here and now is that there is profound anxiety lest this Bill destroy a right which has existed for a very, very long time indeed. The

anxiety persists whatever may be the Government's intentions with regard to waterways, though, as I say, I believe they are benevolent, judging by statements which previous Ministers have made.
I will leave it at that for the moment, hoping for an assurance from the Minister.

Mr. John Smith: Like most hon. Members, owing to the mismanagement of the Government I am supposed at the moment to be in two places at once. I have come from the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, where I had hoped to make a speech against a wicked proposal to deprive widows of their protection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. While the hon. Gentleman is in the House he must devote himself to the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Smith: I have come from that important Committee especially to support this Amendment because, in the past, outside the House, I was a professional nuisance on this subject and I can tell the House with wholehearted sincerity that any diminution or whittling away of the rights of statutory navigation will not help the retention of a network of canals for any purpose, be it for pleasure or anything else. It is only because there are these, to the Government, tiresome rights that there is a network of canals which can be used for pleasure. There are many canals which British Waterways did its level best to abandon, and it was only frustrated by what was thought to be antique and archaic but, as has been shown, valuable legislation handed down from the past.
In subsection (2)(a), the phrase, "customarily used" appears. That may seem to the uninitiated perfectly satisfactory, but there are several canals which enthusiasts would wish to retain and which would make part of a cruising network but which were not customarily used during the period in question because it was impossible to use them. These are canals whose rights will be abrogated by subsection (2)(b) which deals with waterways which have been restored or improved in part—but they may have been restored or improved for boats of very much



smaller size than those used on other canals regarded as making a practicable part of a cruising network.
I hope the House will take it from me that these rights handed down from the past have not only been valuable but are the sole cause of there being a network of canals still in existence for us to discuss.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I did not serve on the Committee and therefore I am unfamiliar with the case which the Government will make on this Amendment. I am open to be persuaded by the Government if their arguments are sound, but in principle, as at present advised, I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminister (Mr. John Smith).
I had the honour during the war of serving for three and a half years on the Committee on Canals and Inland Waterways. We were charged not only with maintaining traffic on waterways but also with planning for a great expansion of the commercial carrying capacity of the canals after the war was over.
On Monday, my right hon. Friend told me that the nationalised canals at present carry about 7 million tons of commercial goods per annum. During the war we carried more than 1 million tons a month on our canals. There has thus been almost a 50 per cent. reduction during the last 20 years. That is immensely regrettable in view of the appalling costs of the maintenance of roads and in terms of accidents and of damage to life and limb, involved when traffic is diverted to lorry transport from other means.
The plans we made would have cost a capital sum infinitesimal in proportion to what is now being spent and has been spent upon the development of roads; it would have allowed the expansion of our waterways commercial transport by a very great factor many times over the tonnage which they were able to carry then.
I suspect any Clause which enables a Minister easily, without much public objection, to close any means of transport. We have seen what happened under the disastrous Acts of the late Tory Administration in respect of the railways. It was then arranged that the Minister

should be able to close stations, feeder lines—

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order. If we are discussing railway closures I am willing to debate them, but I thought that we were discussing canals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was beginning to wonder myself. The right hon. Gentleman is getting a little away from the subsection which is the subject of this Amendment.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, I am arguing that it is desirable to make it difficult to close Canals and, by analogy, I am saying we have had this sad experience with the railways. If I may complete the argument, which I believe to be entirely in order, as a result of closures of feeder-lines and goods depots since 1959, whereas the railways had maintained and increased traffic since 1948, after 1959 they have lost 230-million passenger journeys and 130-million tons of goods traffic.
That comes from closing the means of transport by the will of the Minister without, as I think, adequate protection for the public who wish to use those means of transport. It is for those reasons that I am asking the Minister to explain why I am wrong in thinking that this Amendment should be accepted.

Sir Eric Errington: The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) has said that he was worried about canals being closed without proper consideration. In my constituency there is a canal which did not come under previous legislation, it is privately owned, and, in consequence, it has not been properly looked after.
There are commercial canals, there are canals for cruising, and, finally, there are those most interesting canals known as "the remainder". What will happen to those canals? Will the Minister give us some information? The Basingstoke Canal has been allowed to go without proper upkeep for a considerable period. It is now open to question whether it can be dealt with by making lagoons or marinas in certain parts, or something of that kind. What is the position about such matters? At the moment, it is most unsatisfactory, because nobody seems to be able to deal with them. I hope that the


Minister can tell us how this problem is to be dealt with.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Having given myself a couple of abstentions today on other parts of the Bill, I now want to give my fullest support to the Government on this part.
I say that because it seems odd to me, having heard hon. Gentlemen opposite argue today that we have to put road haulage on a sound financial footing and having argued today and all yesterday that we have to put the railways in a sound economic and financial footing, to hear this argument put forward relating to the inland waterways. To be consistent they should argue along the same lines for our inland waterways.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This may be the last occasion on which we shall have to give way to each other. He has always been courteous, and I thank him. I should like to make it clear, although I am sure he is aware of this, that, speaking for my party, and I think I may speak for the Conservative Party as well, the proposals for inland waterways contained within this part are generally acceptable and welcome.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for that intervention. I will certainly accept that on behalf of the hon. Gentleman's party, but I cannot accept it on behalf of the other party occupying the benches opposite.
I should have thought that if one were to accept the main provisions of this part of the Bill one ought at least to accept the Clauses to which the Amendments being discussed now refer. The main proposal put forward in this part of the Bill is that at last we shall have a definite policy concerning inland waterways. In the past we had a somewhat wishy-washy situation in which we had a collection of rights, to which hon. Gentlemen have made reference. Some of those rights have been exercised and some have not. Because of the dubious position of those rights, we have got to the present situation. The present proposals in the Bill, which state definitely which canals will remain open for certain purposes, are a definite step forward from the kind of situation that has existed hitherto.
If we insist that the Inland Waterways Board, or whatever name we may give to a future board, is to have the duty of maintaining more waterways open, the first question asked by anyone who knows the slightest bit about economics—and this is something that hon. Gentlemen opposite have always professed—is where is the money coming from? Although we shall hear some very powerful sentimental and emotional arguments from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the social and recreational need for keeping these thousands of miles of waterways open, I doubt whether we shall hear any reference made to the sources of finance for doing it. I should have thought it would have been consistent, when talking about putting more obligations on the Inland Waterways Board, to have made some reference to the sources of finance.

Mr. Berry: I should be happy to discuss some of the matters the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but I cannot see that they have any connection with the Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I can assure him and his hon. Friends that I have studied both Amendments carefully. All on this side of the House are perfectly well aware of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve with these Amendments.

Mr. Berry: With one Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield: At least let us accept that we have a definite policy for dealing with canals. Here we have a definite mileage and a definite set of proposals. Let us accept and go forward from this, rather than return to the wishy-washy situation that we had which has led to the breaking down and wearing out of canals hitherto. For these reasons, I urge complete rejection of the Amendment.

Mr. John Farr: I support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) because I think it makes a bad Clause a better one if this subsection is removed. It is a bad Clause because it undermines the maintenance structure of the canal system of this country.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that he could not see the difference between arguments


about the abandonment of a system of canals and arguments relating to the abandonment of certain railway lines. There are real differences If a railway line is abandoned the land can be put to some other useful purpose. However, one cannot abandon a canal and expect no uproar from those who live close to it. As I hope to show in a moment, many problems arise affecting people who live adjacent to a canal that is abandoned. It appears from this Clause that the Government are seeking to remove from the Waterways Board obligations to maintain canals in certain instances. There is not one word in the Clause relating to the obligation which there should be on a Waterways Board towards those who live adjacent to the canal. Perhaps this did not occur to the Minister. Possibly, like the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) he thinks it is possible just to shut a canal and that is that. But there are many associated problems, and I give two examples to illustrate what I mean.
The Grand Union Canal flows through the Midlands and passes close to the centre of Market Harborough, at which point it is 100 feet above the level of the town centre. On two occasions in recent years the centre of Market Harborough has been flooded by the overflowing of the Grand Union Canal, with all the consequent dislocation to office and town life and traffic, not to mention human discomfort. What will happen if the Waterways Board abandons the Grand Union Canal?
There is nothing in the Clause to indicate that a local authority can make representations. The Clause says that representations may be made in relation to the use of the canal for business and commercial and cruising purposes and that those having interests may make representations; but there is nothing which permits a local authority, with all the obligations and responsibilities in the district, to make representations as to how a canal shall be maintained.
There is another illustration which I would draw to the attention of the House to try to bring to the hon. Member for Nuneaton the knowledge that one cannot just close a canal and have done with it.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, we are not discussing the Clause, we are discussing

whether subsection (2) of the Clause can be withdrawn.

Mr. Farr: I was aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and was seeking to argue that it would be a much better Clause if subsection (2) were omitted, because as it is there is no responsibility on the Waterways Board to maintain certain canals which cause considerable flooding of adjacent farms. I can quote a recent example of where that happened in my own constituency, when the Grand Union Canal overflowed. The flow was checked to a certain extent by those responsible for the maintenance of the canal, but not before it had done a great deal of damage to the crops and flooded ditches and waterways.
Quite obviously, if this subsection is removed from the Clause it will be a much better Clause, because in my view there is not the same risk of the Waterways Board washing its hands of the responsibility for the maintenance of a canal. It is really a very bad Clause in a very bad Bill.

Mr. Speaker: It may or may not be a very bad Clause in a very bad Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to remove subsection (2) and the hon. Gentleman must come to that subsection.

Mr. Farr: I was seeking to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the removal of subsection (2) would make it a slightly better Clause in a still very bad Bill.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly for the first time in the debates on this abominable Bill, and I will not be controversial. I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Alder-shot (Sir E. Errington) that, in the light of the experience which we share of derelict canals in our constituency, no provision should be left in the Clause to put anyone else in the same position. My hon. Friend can probably underline my experience that a derelict canal soon becomes a menace to health, a great eyesore, a collector of old bicycles, covered with pond weed and breeding mosquitoes, and is a blooming nuisance to the whole community—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am fascinated by the hon. Member's eloquence. I do not want to read the Amendment to him,


but I would remind him that the proposal is to remove subsection (2).

Mr. Onslow: I hope that, in the light of this experience of mine, the subsection will be removed, since that would place greater responsibility on those maintaining the canals and would diminish the risk that they would be run down to this sad state. It is time that something was done with the Basingstoke Canal. When canals reach this state, those maintaining them should have to bring them back into decent order, so that they can benefit the community, not just for transport but for amenity, for the very large number of people who would make good use of them if they were kept in good order.

Mr. Carmichael: I would tell the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that the Basingstoke Canal is privately-owned, and so has nothing to do with the maintenance duties of the British Waterways Board under this Clause. As to the point of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), the Grand Union Canal, and the branch through Market Harborough, is designated in the Schedule as a cruising waterway.
The Amendment would leave out subsection (2), dealing with the standard of maintenance of the Board's waterways. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal later with the much wider question which can be read into this Amendment. To remove this part of the Board's maintenance duties would mean that it would have no standards and no rational maintenance duty and that subsection (1)(a) and (b) would also be removed.
In the interests of the Board and the waterway users, its maintenance duties should be firmly tied to measurable requirements. This is achieved in subsection (2) by relating the navigation maintenance standards of each waterway to the needs of the craft customarily using it during the latest appropriate period, that is, the nine months prior to the introduction of the Bill. This ceiling on the Board's maintenance duty is necessary to protect it against any demand that a waterway should be maintained to an unrealistic standard.
That leads me to refer again to the fact that part of the standard applied in

the Clause is to maintain commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels. Without subsection (2), those vessels could be, in law, of any size. As was suggested in Committee, in law, it could be demanded that the standard should apply to the "Queen Mary". There would be nothing against this if subsection (2) were removed. There is adequate provision in subsection (3) for the Minister to revise the standards to take account of future changes in the shape, size and design of vessels.
I certainly ask the House not to accept the Amendment, which would leave an indefinable and what could be an intolerable burden on the Waterways Board, but to leave the Clause as it is, so that the Board has objectives which it knows and which can be fulfilled.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Berry: I support the Liberal Party Amendment. This has been a wide-ranging debate and I will not add to the arguments already adduced, many of which will be relevant to the debate which we will have on later Amendments. I agree that this is a totally unnecessary subsection.
What will happen in 10 years' time if there is a court case and someone is supposed to know what kinds of vehicle were using a certain waterway during the previous year? This will cause great confusion in the courts. I do not think that talk about the "Queen Mary"— which was also indulged in in Committee when a similar Amendment was moved— is relevant. This subsection introduces an element of uncertainty into the Board's duties which is quite out of place in legislation of this kind. Assuming that the Board remains subject to a duty to the public, the court will be perfectly capable of deciding what that duty is. Without going into any more detail, because other points will be debated later, if the Liberals wish to press this to a vote, I shall support them.

Mr. Bessell: I was disappointed at the Minister's reply. He did not get to grips with the point. I accept that it is necessary to have some form of definition in relation to subsection (1). This is what subsection (2) sets out to do. The reasons why we object to it, and which were rehearsed in Committee, are that


it is far too restrictive in its present terminology. That worries us and causes us to believe that what was otherwise an admirable part of the Bill could be seriously misused.
We have had talk about the "Queen Mary", but that is nonsense. There is nothing in the Bill that compels the Waterways Board to extend or enlarge a waterway and do all the things that would be necessary to get a ship of that dimension through an inland waterway. That is no answer at all. Our concern with this subsection rests on the fact that paragraphs (a) and (b) represent two very

narrow restrictions which are not in the best interests of the scheme in respect of waterways.

The general provisions in connection with the Waterways Board, with the notable exception of Clause 45, are highly acceptable to us, but the subsection in its present form is unacceptable and I must ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 259.

Division No. 198.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kitson, Timothy


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Errington, Sir Eric
Lambton, Viscount


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Lane, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Batsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bell, Ronald
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Galbraith, Hn. T.G.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bessell, Peter
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
MacArthur, Ian


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Black, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Sir Richard
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Boyd-Carpentor, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray


Braine, Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miscampbell, Norman


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector


Bruce-[...]ardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Murton, Oscar


Campbell, Gordon
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cary, Sir Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley 


Clark, Henry
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Corfield, F. V.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pardoe, John


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Crouch, David
Hooson, Emlyn
Peel, John


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian



Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, John


Currie, C. B. H.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Dance, James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pym, Francis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Doughty, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David




Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stodart, Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Walters, Dennis


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Webster, David


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Teeling, Sir William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Scott, Nicholas
Temple, John M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sharpies, Richard
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Silvester, Frederick
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wylie, N. R.


Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Younger, Hn. George


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vickers, Dame Joan



Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
 Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Speed, Keith
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Eric Lubbock and


Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Dr. M. P. Winstanley




NOES


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)



Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Alldritt, Walter
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John
Ledger, Ron


Barnes, Michael
Ennals, David
Lee, John (Reading)


Baxter, William
Ensor, David
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Faulds, Andrew
Lipton, Marcus


Binnes John

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Forrester, John
Matron, Dr. J. Dickson


Booth, Albert
Fowler, Gerry
McCann, John


Boyden, James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacColl, James


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Freeson, Reginald
MacDermot, Niall


Bradley, Tom
Galpern, Sir Myer
Macdonald, A.H.


Brooks, Edwin
Gardner, Tony
McGuire, Michael


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackintosh, John p.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maclennan, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie


Carter-Jones, Lowis
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Chapman, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Coe, Denis
Hattersley, Roy
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Coleman Donald
Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher


Concannon, J. D.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, J. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Henig, Stanley
Mikardo, Ian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Millan, Bruce


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cronin John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howarth, Harry(Wellingborough)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Daiyell Tam
Howie, W.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Strettord)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Neal, Harold


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan


Davies S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam
Norwood, Christopher


Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric


Dell, Edmund
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Brian


Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oswald, Thomas


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dickens, James
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur








Park, Trevor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tomney, Frank


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurence
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Whitlock, William


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Small, William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Randall, Harry
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rankin, John
Stonehouse, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rees, Merlyn
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Winnick, David


Reynolds, G. W.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Richard, Ivor
Swingler, Stephen
Wyatt, Woodrow


Robertson, John(Paisley)
Symonds, J. B.
Yates, Victor


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Taverne, Dick



Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. Neil McBride and


Roebuck, Roy
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Rose, Paul
Tinn, James

Mr. Swinger: I beg to move Amendment No. 404, in page 130, line 5, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert:
(5) If, on an application made by any person under this subsection to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, the court determines that there has been, in respect of a significant length of any waterway, a serious failure by the Board to discharge the duty imposed on them by subsection(1)of this section or any order under subsection (3) thereof the court may, subject to subsection (6) of this section, require the Board to remedy that failure; but, save as afore said, neither subsection (1) nor any order under subsection (3) of this section shall be construed as imposingany duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject.
(6) Nothing in subsection (5) of this section shall be construed as affecting the power of the Minister to make an order, or a further order, under section 99(3) of this Act or subsection (3)of this section in relation to a waterway or any part of a waterway which is the subject of an application under the said subsection (5) or in respect of which the court has imposed any requirement on the Board under that subsection; and—

(a) while such an order is pending in respect of any waterway or part of a waterway the court shall not impose any requirement on the Board under that subsection in respect of that waterway or part;
(b) if such an order is made in respect of any waterway or part of a waterway while it is the subject of an application under that subsection, the court shall, in determining on that application whether there has been a failure by the Board to discharge their duty, have regard only to the duty (if any) to which the Board are subject in consequence of the making of the order.

For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, an order shall be treated as pending during the period of three months beginning with the day on which the Minister notifies the Board that he is considering the making of tie order and, if before the expira-

tion of that period notice of the proposed order is published under Schedule 13 to this Act, during any further period until the order is made or the Minister notifies the Board that it will not be made.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that, with this Amendment, we take Amendment No. 402, in page 129, line 32, at end insert:
'provided that the duty of the Board to maintain any waterway which is a commercial or cruising waterway shall be modified and made subject to the preceding provisions of this section which shall not be construed as imposing upon the Board in respect of any such waterway any higher duty than the Board are under at the date of this Act in respect of such waterway'.
No. 403, in page 129, line 32, at end insert:
Provided that the duty of the Board to maintain any waterway which is a commercial or cruising waterway shall be modified and made subject to the preceding provisions of this section which shall not be construed as imposing on the Board in respect of any such waterway any additional duty other than that which the Board was under on the 8th December 1967 in respect of such waterway.
No. 405, in page 130, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'but' in line 7, and insert:
'Subsection (1) of this section shall not be construed as imposing either directly or indirectly any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any Court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject'.
No. 406, in page 130, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 7 and insert:
'Subsection (1) of this section shall not be construed as imposing either directly or indirectly any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject'.


No. 407, in page 130, line 34, leave out subsection (7).
No. 408, in page 130, line 38, after ' Board ', insert:
and which is neither a commercial nor a cruising waterway '.
No. 409, in page 131, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert:
' of the soil, nothing in this part of the Act shall operate to prevent the revival continuance or acquisition of rights of or in connection with navigation on or over any natural water course or on or over any artificial watercourse '.
No. 417 and No. 418, all of which are linked.

Mr. Swingler: For the alleviation of anxiety, I am advised to say that the score is 4–1. [Laughter.] I hope that I have been correctly advised.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the final score?

Mr. Swingler: My advice on that subject is deficient, I am afraid. This is merely an interim report.
In moving this very important Amendment, it must be made plain that it refers solely to the nationalised waterways system. Many hon. Members and their constituents are passionately interested in our canals. Hon. Members frequently raise points about canals unaware, perhaps, that some of them are privately owned. In the previous debate, a number of hon. Members referred to the Basingstoke Canal, and it was alleged that it is derelict, polluted, and even a menace to public health. It is a privately-owned canal, about which I am only too willing to make investigations and see what powers we may have to help. The Amendment, however, refers only to the duties of the nationalised Waterways Board and the nationally-owned canal system for which it is responsible.
A little earlier, the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) chided me for having said something in Committee and now, on Report, supporting a different proposal. However, it is the responsibility of Ministers attending Committees to advocate the Government's proposals as strongly as they can. It is also their responsibility to listen carefully to criticisms of those proposals and take them into account. I make no apology, therefore, for having considered carefully the views of hon. Members opposite and some

of my hon. Friends about this and other parts of the Bill, which accounts for many of the Amendments which have been moved today.
We have arrived at a different view from the one I advocated about the Government proposals in Committee. The hon. Member for Southgate will appreciate that this Amendment and those related to it form a very important matter, which occupied the Standing Committee for some time, in regard to the rights of citizens in relation to the maintenance duties and responsibilities of the Inland Waterways Board. In Committee I craved indulgence to make a statement which contained certain historical matter about the whole development of the canal system. On this occasion I ask for the indulgence of the House to some extent as I have a rather longer than usual statement to make on this Amendment. This is in recognition of the fact that the Amendment covers a wide field and has been produced in response to many criticisms and points which were put forward.
I think it unlikely that there is any basic difference between the two sides of the House on the issue raised in this group of Amendments. The object of Clause 100, as amended by the proposed Amendment No. 404, is to bring the Board's duty to keep the commercial and cruising waterways in repair into line with modern needs as we see them. To use the words of the Inland Waterways Association, it is to provide for this,
appropriately limited and reasonable duty 
to be enforceable in the courts.
Many hon. Members wil have received from the Inland Waterways Association a copy of its letter on the subject. The greater part of the waterway system can no longer do the job for which it was built. To maintain this part today for the old job of providing for the carriage of freight when no freight is carried on the greater part of the system, would impose an undue burden on the taxpayer for these canals are operating today at a heavy loss. Yet this is what the Board's duty would have been had not the Government in 1962, under Section 64 of the 1962 Act, put a moratorium on the duties of the Board for five years, which later was extended to six years and required the Waterways Board to review the


manner in which these waterways could be put to best use.
As I said in Committee, fortunately a very thorough and revealing study, as I think all hon. Members will admit, was made by the Waterways Board and resulted in a publication which had a fair circulation. The moratorium of the 1962 Act is now coming to an end and we have the job of bringing the Waterways Board's duties up-to-date in the light of the stud}' it put forward. That study made clear that the cheapest thing to do with the non-commercial waterways would be to close them to navigation where they are not already closed or unusable. The difference in cost between closing those waterways to navigation and maintaining them in such a condition that they could be used for cruising craft would be a net amount to the taxpayer of between £300,000 and £400,000 a year at present levels of traffic. To maintain them to standards for commercial craft would of course cost vastly more. This is a stark fact which we have to face. Nowadays comparatively few people take their holidays on the waterways in cruising craft: at most about 50,000 citizens a year.

Mr. Bessell: I hesitate to add to the hon. Gentleman's burden—he must be feeling intolerably tired—but may we have even an approximate idea of what it would have cost to keep the waterways up to a commercial standard?

Mr. Swingler: I have not got that figure at the moment, but I hope that it will arrive in due course. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be vastly more than the figure that I have quoted in this respect.
I was coming to the point, which we must face realistically, of the revenue potential of the waterways as cruising waterways. In spite of some statements that are made, comparatively few people at the moment use the long stretches of canals in this country for cruising craft. I gave a figure of 50,000 a year. In fact we have a situation—and I put it deliberately in this way without seeking to put any gloss upon it—where each person's waterway holiday is being subsidised by the taxpayer to the extent of £6 to £8 per year. That is the present figure.

Dr. Winstanley: Does the hon. Member take account, in that calculation, of the fact that were it not for cruising on the waterways the waterways would be unsuitable for fishing and many other pursuits?

Mr. Swingler: Certainly, I take that into account, and it is quite correct. I take the hon. Gentleman's point immediately. The fact that one gives these realistic figures of actual costs and actual revenues does not necessarily indicate, as one might say, a negative course; but on the other hand one cannot say "close them all down", because it might be much more costly, and as those of us know who have seen an analysis of the waterways system resulting from the review, that is one of the facts we have to face—that it is more expensive to close waterways than it is to keep them open. When we talk about rights and duties, the important thing is to be realistic. We must accept the fact that nobody has a right to a subsidised holiday on the waterways. On the other hand, these waterways provide a recreational facility of great potential value, and we all agree it would be a great pity to close them. If they were closed, most of them would very soon irrevocably disappear.
There are some waterways, almost completely unnavigable, which the Board must be free to treat in the most economic way without being beset, as I said in committee, by the ancient duty to restore them to navigation at enormous expense to the taxpayer—an ancient duty which has become in many respects as derelict as many of the waterways themselves. The duty may remain on the Statute Book in Local Acts but is not very much practised. By far the greater part of the system, virtually all of the waterways which are navigable, we are aiming to preserve, in the confident hope that their use will increase and that revenue will more nearly meet the cost of maintaining them, if opportunities for this to happen are developed. Having said that, in the last resort—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not open the debate too widely, for otherwise we shall never complete it.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I recognise the importance of that, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure you will understand that this rather lengthy Amendment which the Government is bringing forward covers the maintenance obligations of the Board and also the rights and responsibilities of citizens. I felt that as this has been the subject of great and widespread controversy it was essential for me to explain to the House how we have arrived at the conclusions embodied in the Clause. In the last resort, any Government must be able to control what subsidies should be paid. In Clauses 99 and 100(3) we have carefully circumscribed powers which provide for this. But it would be irresponsible not to ensure that the waterways are in the most economical manner matched to modern needs. Thus the powers and duties relating to the cruising waterways must be to maintain them for the relatively small draught and cruising craft for which they are required today. Even on the commercial waterways it is sensible to tailor the duty to the modern craft—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Question, That the Clause stand part. We are discussing the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to leave out subsections (5) and (6) and substitute others. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment or the debate will become very wide.

Mr. Swingler: The Amendment radically alters the meaning of the Clause in relation to the point to which I am coming, namely the duties of the Board. The new duties to which I am referring, provided for in the Amendment and in Clause 100, are related closely to modern needs to avoid wastage of the taxpayers' money and to make the best use of the waterways.
The Opposition Amendments, particularly Amendments No. 402 and 403, would entirely destroy the new certainty which we seek to introduce. In essence, they are trying to restore the old maintenance duty, and the trouble is that few things could be more obscure than what those duties were, because they were created by a host of Acts of Parliament—literally hundreds—some of them very ancient, but nobody is absolutely certain what is really the statutory position on any particular length of waterway.
The Opposition Amendments have been strongly canvassed by the Inland

Waterways Association. It is right that the ideas urged by this dedicated body should be openly and properly canvassed. Hon. Members opposite have rightly provided that opportunity, but the Association's enthusiasm for the cause of the waterways, with which we have great sympathy, is in this case running away with it. If the Opposition Amendments were adopted there would be fewer rather than more waterways available because the tax payers', and hence the Board's resources, would have to be spread more thinly, and so would be less efficiently used in the cause of recreation and amenity.
No arbitrary destruction of rights is involved. We are trying to provide for the fully effective use of the waterways and, by the Amendment, for the Board's duties to maintain waterways to be enforceable through the courts. This matter concerned many hon. Members in Committee and very strong views were expressed on it. In Committee, we resisted the view that these obligations should be enforceable in the courts by citizens. We rather put forward the point of view that complaints about navigability of the canals should be dealt with by administrative processes.
However, on reconsideration of the matter, as hon. Members will recognise from the Amendment, we are providing for the maintenance duties in respect of the commercial and cruising waterways to be enforceable through the courts, and therefore we are altering the arrangements we had made about the duties of the Amenity Advisory Council and the powers of the Minister in this respect in order to substitute a procedure whereby the citizens will have rights of litigation in relation to the maintenance of the waterways.
I apologise to the House, as I did at the beginning, for the time I have taken to explain this. We had in Committee a lengthy discussion on this point. This is an important change which we have made in this respect in the duties of the Board and the rights of the citizens, and we have made it in response to the criticisms made by hon. Gentlemen. Therefore, I hope that in recognition of the change which is being made hon. Members will be willing to accept the view expressed by the Government in the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the Amendment be made. I remind the House that we are considering, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 402, 403, 405 to 409, 417 and 418—and may I also remind the House that a former Member of Parliament would have liked to join in this debate—Sir Alan Herbert.

Mr. Berry: The Minister of State took a long time explaining this matter and Clause 100 and I cannot help noticing that there is still another Clause which was not discussed in Committee and is not likely to be now since the Guillotine falls at 11 o'clock. The Minister of State listened very carefully to our arguments in Committee on this point, as, indeed, we listened to what he said at the time, and which he have had an opportunity of considering since. Since then the Inland Waterways Association has provided information for Members of Parliament to sustain an all-party case—because the Association is an all-party organisation.
In Committee, we discussed in great detail the question of legal rights for people who might be hurt or involved in an accident on the waterways, and the Minister of State said:
Anybody who sustains injury in navigating on a waterway, with a licence from the Board, will have a right against the Board in the same way as he would have a right against the Railway Board. This is completely covered under the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 2nd May, 1968; c. 3063.]
I think that the hon. Gentleman may agree that that Act does not apply in this case, but he has made an attempt to meet our points and he has drafted this Amendment. Although I believe that the Minister set out to meet our case, my advisers tell me that he has not solved the problem at all.
The only duty the Government Amendment provides is the duty on the Board to keep the canals in repair. Orders to repair a canal have been issued very rarely—only five times this century. But that is the only positive provision in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has not solved the problem of action for damages. If someone is hurt on a canal, there is no legal right to sue the Board and receive damages. We thought that he would try to solve that problem, but he has not done so. All he has done is bring in this rare form. The system whereby a local authority is liable if

someone trips, for example, on a paving stone and injures himself, is the sort of solution which would have been more satisfactory in this case.
If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will permit the Board to contract out of all liability. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this again. There is still time for him to find a better solution.
Amendment No. 402, like Amendment No. 403, is essentially protective. We are trying to help the Government. The first three lines will protect the Board and attempt to achieve the Government's own stated purpose. It is the liability of the Board to maintain cruising waterways to a standard appropriate only to motor cruisers so we could have three feet for one sort of boat and five feet for another. It is surely better to maintain a waterway as we suggest than confine maintenance as the Government propose.
The second part of Amendment No. 402 makes it clear that no additional duty shall be imposed on the Board by subsection (1). This covers special facilities for cruising craft which the Board is not bound to supply. That is surely in keeping with the Government's expressed intention in the White Paper.
Amendment No. 405 also attempts to protect the Board. It would provide that subsection (1) would not mean an extra liability on it. Amendments Nos. 405 and 406 depend on Amendment No. 408 and assume that the existing law continues to apply. Subsection (1) would not increase the Board's liability to the public. The Minister recognised earlier the words
… to which the Board would not otherwise be subject
which also apply to other nationalised industries where necessary, and they have been included in our Amendments.
Amendment No. 408 is of fundamental importance. The alteration it proposes would preserve public rights over commercial and cruising waterways. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point. The abolition of public rights was not White Paper policy. Indeed, it is the exact opposite of what the Government then said. It is pointless in the case of commercial and cruising waterways as general policy to involve unnecessary compensation and is inconsistent with the all-party policy towards


access to the countryside and other rights of way. There is nothing archaic about this branch of the law. Nor has it been abused other than by non-observance since 1947, when the law was changed.
Amendment No. 409 refers to waterways where the Board does not own the soil over which the water flows.
There are a number of examples. There is the Kennet, where the mills own the millponds, but the public has a right of way. There is the Severn and the Trent, which have locks owned by the Board, but which owns nothing else. In Somerset, the Board owns nothing on the River Tone other than some ancient navigation duties, long since neglected. We seek to secure the public right where the Board does not own the soil. These Amendments attempt to be helpful. I hope that the question of the public right to use waterways—

Mr. Swingler: I do not understand the complaint that the hon. Gentleman is making. As to actions for damages, they are possible in the usual way at common law, and there is occupiers' liability. There is no difference between this and any other public property. Would he state what case he has in mind, or the particular complainant, because we would be glad to look into it?

Mr. Berry: I had hoped that I had made this clear, that under the wording of the Clause, even as amended, the public have no rights. We discussed this in Committee in great detail, and I thought that the Minister accepted our point, and intended to find a way of solving the problem. That is how I read his speech, and I am sorry that he has not done this. I have quoted the one case, which is a limited one, and I would like him to have another look at this.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Amendment No. 404 suffers as much as other modern legislation, from shocking drafting. Not only in this legislation, but in a great many other Acts, the wording is such that one can read and re-read them and still fail to understand what is meant.
This Amendment is no exception. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but he did not refer to the point at all. He gave us an interesting disserta-

tion upon the position of canals throughout the country. I did not think it right to interrupt, and suggest that he was out of order, but what he was not doing was explaining the legal position of those who may consider, rightly or wrongly, that they have actions against the Board after this part comes into effect. He has made the task of those who advise him much more difficult by this, and I ask him to take another look at it to make sure that people can understand it.
The Minister did not help us with his explanation. I know, as any lawyer knows, that there is a right under the Occupiers' Liability Act. That is not referred to here. Suppose that there has been a breach of statutory duty, under this Measure, by the occupiers of a particular type of waterway as defined under the Bill. Suppose a bank collapses and one's cabin cruiser goes into a field, injuring a large number of people. Has one a right under this Bill to bring an action under the Statute? If one has, then the words which you did not read out Mr. Speaker, in this Amendment— and I do not blame you because the wording is so long—mean that the Minister can say that he does not think that one ought to have been on the waterway, and so he will make an Order, while the action is pending, to put that waterway into the category of "the remainder"of canals and waterways.
The action fails because the law is changed during the course of it. Whatever the duties of those who own or occupy waterways may be, whether they are waterway occupiers, gas operators, electricity boards or railway boards, the law should not be changed during the course of an action. One does not change the rules of a football match during the course of a game. That is the position under this form of wording which the Minister is asking the House to approve. Basically, I believe that the Minister wants to do the right thing, but he has got it wrong in this Amendment. In voting against this, as I hope to be able to do, I shall not be voting against what the Minister wants to do but against the wording in this Amendment which gets it all wrong.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. and learned Gentleman may criticise the wording, but the point we have established here, as a



concession, is that the maintenance obligations of the Board in relation to the cruising and commercial networks should be enforceable in the courts. I am advised that that is what the Amendment means. He referred to the Minister's powers to make an Order, but he will see that the Minister has to adopt a procedure which is challengeable in Parliament. He is implying that Parliament would approve it.
I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise, on reflection, although he may not like the legal rigmarole involved, that we are trying to establish that the maintenance duty should be enforceable in the courts, which is really what he wants.

Mr. Doughty: I said before that I think that the Minister and I basically want the same thing, but he has not got it. There is a Guillotine on this Clause. These complicated matters should have proper time for discussion. If there was more time, I would read out the wording of the Amendment. It is rather lengthy so I will not waste the valuable time of the House by reading it now. The Minister would have the power to make an order during the course of an action changing the character of a waterway from one class to another, and there are three classes. The duties relating to those three classes vary. If the Minister downgrades a particular waterway during the period of an action the person who has properly brought that action may find himself out of court.
Time is short and others wish to speak. I ask the Minister to look at this again. While his ideas may be right, I believe that he has it wrong this time. I hope, therefore, that the House will knock

this Amendment out, leaving the Minister to do what the House wants him to do in simple words so that people will understand.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister of State for moving this Amendment. By so doing, and restoring the rights of litigation to lovers of inland waterways, he has met many of their major preoccupations.
I venture to comment on some of the figures he used in illustrating his argument. He said that there is to be a subsidy of £300,000 to £400,000 a year from the Waterways Board for the maintenance of waterways. He also said that only 50,000 people were using the waterways for holidays. That figure of 50,000 will be greatly increased if the Waterways Board pursues its policy vigorously. But the subsidy is trifling in relation to this vital national asset. We must think twenty years ahead. We are told, the population will increase to 74 million and automation will bring the 30-hour week.
It has been proved by an international council on sport and physical education, of which I have the honour to be the chairman and which has consultative status with U.N.E.S.C.O., that physical recreation retards senile decay and maintains productive capacity in the human body. In view of these considerations, and since the inland waterways are used not only for holidays but at every weekend for rowing, sailing, fishing and swimming, it is a very small contribution if the taxpayer provides only £300,000.
I hope that the Minister will think of these considerations.

Mr. Bessell: I am not entirely happy with the Minister of State's speech. He has gone a long way to meet our concern, expressed in Committee, about the effects of the Clause on the ordinary citizen's rights of litigation against the Waterways Board, and that the rights under the 1962 Act for a temporary period, which was subsequently extended, might be wiped out by certain phrases in the original drafting.
We are both tired, but I was impressed by how he advanced his argument. However, although he was doing everything he could to meet our points, I do not think that the Amendments meet them. He has gone a long way over the cruising and commercial waterways which will be a responsibility of the Board so long as they operate, but the difficulty arises over those which will cease to operate, perhaps without being the subject of a closure.
Any existing right of action is occasionally enforced. I gave the example in Committee of a disused canal close to my house in Cornwall which, under the existing Acts, I was able to compel the Great Western Railway to clear to prevent flooding of my land. These enforceable provisions are essential, particularly as these waterways become more and more derelict.
I am concerned that the point has still not been entirely met. I am hesitant to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Amendments because I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has genuinely sought to meet our points. I am afraid, however—all my advice in the last couple of days confirms this—that, despite his good intentions, they have not been carried out by the Ministry's draftsmen. I hope that he will agree to reconsider the Amendments and introduce them in a different form in another place, which would enable him to meet the points on which he has genuinely sought to accommodate the House.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: Some hon. Members opposite are not being as gracious as they might have been about the extent to which the Minister has gone to meet them. I did not have the privilege of serving on Standing Committee and I have not the same advantage in

regard to the matters raised at that time. Clearly, the Minister has gone a long way.
I have some doubt whether the cumbersome procedure of the courts which the Amendment proposes is altogether suitable. Court procedure is a very suitable mechanism for restraining people from doing things they should not do, but it is not so effective in directing them to do something which they do not want to do. I can envisage a situation in which there will be long arguments as to what constitutes a serious failure by the Board. Therefore, although this Amendment no doubt is well-intentioned, ironically I criticise it from the opposite point of view from some hon. Members because it may expose the Board to a certain amount of unnecessary harassment.
I sympathise with the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) on terminology. I am not necessarily an admirer of Ernest Gowers, but some legal draftsmen might be asked to do a course in plain words, or at any rate recognise that there is some virtue in short sentences. Even after doodling over these two subsections for several minutes, excluding all the supporting clauses, inching in only main verbs and subjects and objects, I find both of them exceedingly difficult to understand.
However, there is a point of substance, apart from questions of text, in the first subsection. What do we mean by the term "significant length" of any waterway? No doubt this is intended by the Minister to be generously interpreted, but it is a question-begging phrase. One would rather it were expressed in a minimum length, or perhaps better still in terms of a percentage. No definition will be perfect, but it is as imprecise a phrase as one could expect to find in a definition of this kind. The Minister is to be congratulated on having gone a long way to meet the objections many people felt about it.
I should like to join with the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East in his strictures on the second subsection. This is obviously not intended, but it would be a most bizarre situation if, in the midst of court proceedings, a Minister


were able to intervene and alter the law with regard to which the action was being taken. There is an inevitable uncertainty about litigation, and however clearly things are defined there is an irreducible minimum of uncertainty which one has to face. It is a different matter when one sees a power specifically granted which would allow the basis of law to be altered, which, in fact, encourages a Minister, if he is so minded, to alter the law to divest himself of an embarrassing action.
I do not suggest that any Minister will set out to avoid the consequences on the part of the Board. If I understand the Clause correctly—and I am not sure that I do, because it is so peculiarly worded —it vests in the Minister power to do just that. Although I congratulate the Minister on having gone this far, I hope that, for the sake of good English and clarity, he will reconsider subsection (6).

Mr. Farr: There is obviously much indecision and uncertainty about the meaning of the Clause as amended. I suggest that the Minister gets his legal advisers to consult the legal advisers of the Inland Waterways Association to see whether some clarification can be introduced. The Minister did not help by making a woolly speech, holding up his hands in horror and saying that we could not have public funds subsidising canal users for holidays—

Mr. Swingler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Farr: —and this at a time when British Railways are being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £150 million a year and are still running holiday excursion trains.

Mr. Swingler: Mr. Swingler rose—

Mr. Farr: I will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I wish to be brief.
I still do not know what the Minister meant when he said earlier that the Grand Union Canal was classified as a cruising waterway. It is still used commercially and, if it was classified as a commercial waterway, is the power of local authorities—to object to the standards of maintenance as not being adequate—safeguarded by the Bill?

Mr. Swingler: I said that we were subsidising those who used the cruising waterways and that we proposed to con-

tinue to do so. I wished to make plain the facts about the extent of the subsidy because it is realistic for the House to face the financial facts and the implications of the proposals being made to maintain the country's canals.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman clearly said that no holidaymaker could expect help for canals at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Swingler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Farr: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will check precisely what he said in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Richard Body: Not only is the Government Amendment badly drafted, but it introduces two dangerous principles and thereby creates an unwise precedent. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) highlighted some of the more foolish drafting aspects of the Amendment. He pointed out that, to begin with, the applicant or plaintiff in the High Court must prove that there is
… a significant length of any waterway …
The word "significant" is a relative term and does not appear in any legal dictionary. What is significant to one court will not be significant to another. It might be an inch, a foot or a yard and it is intolerable that any applicant should have to try to establish
… a significant length of any waterway…
Then the wretched applicant must show that there has been
… a serious failure by the Board to discharge the duty imposed on them…
Here again, the draftsman has included a relative term, and both of these qualifications are unnecessary.
The Minister must realise that because these proceedings will be in the High Court, they will be expensive. Even if the applicant is successful in presenting his case, the costs will be discretionary. This is, of course, a valuable weapon, for we do not want a litigious person to make a stupid claim against the Board. A person making a claim will run the double peril of meeting his own costs and those of the Board. That is sanction enough. It is, therefore, unnecessary to include the words "significant" and "serious", which do not appear in any


well-drafted legislation. The word "significant" is new to legislation.

Mr. Manuel: These lawyers do go on!

Mr. Body: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) remembers very well how grateful he was on the Standing Committee on the Land Commission Bill to have one or two lawyers opposite to guide him.

Mr. Manuel: I said quite sincerely that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) had had the advice of his two legal friends who are giving him the benefit of their legal expertise tonight, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to impose too much on them.

Mr. Body: Once the applicant has overcome these two obstacles there is a third. A dangerous principle which has been introduced by the Government. The Minister may give notice to the Waterways Board that he is considering making an Order that will alter the duty of the Board to maintain the waterway or to close it altogether. The Amendment provides that the court shall not make an order in respect of the waterway if that notice has been given. In other words, the jurisdiction of the High

Court is excluded before any Ministerial Order is made.

Thus, if the High Court is informed by the Waterways Board that the Minister contemplates a change in the law— not that he has made a change in the law, but merely contemplates it—then the High Court is precluded from hearing the action. Does the Minister realise that he has introduced this principle? It is a novel doctrine, there is no precedent for it, it is thoroughly dangerous and I hope that he will abandon it.

There is another dangerous precedent that he has introduced in the Amendment. The Minister can change the law by making this Order, but if the cause of action were to begin, say, today, it would be some months before it could be heard in the High Court. If there is to be a change in the law between now and the hearing, the court at the time of the hearing will be precluded from reaching a finding on the complaint when the hearing takes place. Clearly, that is thoroughly harsh and wholly wrong, and I hope that the Minister of State will reconsider it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 223.

Division No. 199.]
AYES
[10.44 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunn, James A.


Allaurt, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack


Alldritt, Walter
Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Allen, Scholefield
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Anderson, Donald
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Peter
Chapman, Donald
Edelman, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Coe, Denis
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Concannon, J.D.
Ellis, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.




Barnes, Michael
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ennals, David


Baxter, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ensor, David


Bence, Cyril
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cronin, John
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Binns, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Bishop, E. S.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Foley, Maurice


Boardman,H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale[...])


Boyden, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Forrester, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fowler, Gerry


Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brooks, Edwin
Delargy, Hugh
Freeson, Reginald


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dell, Edmund
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Gardner, Tony


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dewar, Donald
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gourlay, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Dickens, James

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'busrn)
Dobson, Ray
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Doig, Peter
Gregory, Arnold


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Driberg, Tom
Grey, Charles (Durham)




Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Reynolds, G. W.



Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanetly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackintosh, John p.
Richard, Ivor


Hamling, william
Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Harnnan, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Harper, Joseph
McNamara, J. Kevin
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roebuck, Roy


Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rose, Paul


Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Henig, Stanley
Manuel, Archie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howarth, Harry (Weltingborough)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howie, W.
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkln, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hoy, James
Mendelson, J. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Slater, Joseph


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hynd, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stonehouse, John


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jackson, Cotin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Swain, Thomas


Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Swingler, Stephen


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Neal, Harold
Taverne, Dick


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stan
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Norwood, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Erwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, Brian
Tomney, Frank


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orme, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Varley, Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter A Chatham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lawson, George
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ledger, Ron
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Lee, John (Reading)
Park, Trevor
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Loughin, Charles
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pentland, Norman
Winnick, David


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mabon Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woof, Robert


McBridge, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


MacColl, James
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Yates, Victor


MacDermot, Niall
Probert, Aruthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Mac Donald A. H.
Rankin, John
Mr. John McCann and


McGuire, Michael
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. loan L. Evans




NOES


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, sir Henry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Astor, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Doughty, Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, G. B.


Bainlel, Lord
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Batsford, Brian
Campbell, Gordon
Eden, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bell, Ronald
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.
Errington, Sir Eric


Bessell, Peter
Clark, Henry
Eyre, Reginald


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Fortescue, Tim


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.
Foster, Sir John


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crowder, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Currie, G. B. H.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Braine, Bernard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brewis, John
Dance, James
Glyn, Sir Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.







Goodhart, Philip
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Goodhew, Victor
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cower, Raymond
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.G6offrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Grant, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Lubbock, Erie
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gresham-Cooks, R.
McAdden, sir Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Grieve, Percy
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McMaster, Stanley
Scott, Nicholas


Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Farntham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall, John (Wyoombe)
Maddan, Martin
Sharpies, Richard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Silvester, Frederick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maude, Angus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Speed, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro, Hector
Tapsell, Peter


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Heseltira, Michael
More, Jasper
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hiley, Joseph
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Teeling, Sir William


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Murton, Oscar
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hooson, Emlyn
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hordern, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Strauhenzee, W. R.


Hornby, Richard
Nott, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pardoe, John
Webster, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peel, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Kim ball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kirk Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Lambton, Viscount
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lancaster, Viscount
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt, Hn. Sir Peter
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move Amendment No. 562, in page 130, line 46, at end insert:
Provided that where substantial parts of any such waterway consist of a river nothing in this subsection shall have the effect of preventing the recreational use as of right by the public in small manually-propelled boats of such parts of the waterway as have not been artificially constructed.
The point raised by this Amendment may appear to be a minor one, but I think it of some importance. The waterways which are comprised in the undertaking of the Board include not only canals, but river navigations such as the Trent, the Lee, the Soar and Stort navigations.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am listening to the hon. Member. I hope that the House will do so also.

Mr. Johnson: By Schedule 12, these are described as either "commercial" or "cruising" waterways, but there are probably others included in what is described in Clause 99(l)(c) as "the remainder ". Although the difficulty that the Amendment tries to cover does not arise on commercial or cruising waterways, the Minister is taking power to move waterways from one category to another—from either named category to "the remainder". The result would be that unless something is done to subsection (7) these waterways will revert to private status and any craft using them would be trespassing.
I presume that the Minister will not transfer river navigation from the active category to "the remainder" while they are used either for commercial craft or powered pleasure craft, but no account appears to have been taken of the use


of the river for recreational purposes by small manually-propelled boats, skiffs, canoes and so on. No objection is taken to the removal by paragraph (b) of the duty to maintain, but the right of passage should not be taken away.
In other legislation, such as the Countryside Bill, the Government are furthering the recreational use of waterways and making it possible to improve access to them. it is surprising that this Maesure appears to ignore this completely, except in relation to powered pleasure cruisers. Consideration should be given to the small manually-propelled boats, skiffs, and so on.

Mr. Carmichael: I am very sorry that I must give my hon. Friend unhappy news. He mentioned the possibilities of navigating small craft on natural rivers, but any existing right to navigate with small manually-propelled boats on rivers would normally be common law rights and not rights arising under the local enactment. The Clause does not bite on the common law rights. Subsection (10) makes provision for the Board to license any navigation previously sanctioned by the abrogated navigation rights.
Any fear that small craft will, because of the Clause, be unable to navigate any of the natural water courses in the Board's system is groundless. Perhaps my hon. Friend can take some comfort from that. The statutory rights dealt with

in the Clause are, in general, not rights relating to navigation by small manually-propelled boats but rights relating to freight-carrying vessels.

The phrase "manually-propelled small boats" in the Amendment is a very imprecise definition. There is no real restriction on these boats in the waterways of the Board. The Clause relates to navigation rights.

For the reasons I have given, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir Frank Pearson: On a point of order. I did not hear a single word of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) in moving the Amendment, and I did not understand a single word of what the Minister said in reply. Is, it right that a Division should be called under those circumstances?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the House would wish to proceed to a Division, and I am required by the Order to put the Question.

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, proceded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put. That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 225 Noes 260.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Errington Sir Eric


Allason, James (Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Fair, John


Astor, John
Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Nigel



Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Campbell, Gordon
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles'


Awdry, Daniel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cary, Sir Robert
Foster, Sir John 


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. 


Balniel, Lord
Clark, Henry
Gibson-Watt, David 


Batsford, Brian
Clegg, Walter
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan 


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bell, Ronald
Cooper-Key, Sir Nelli
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Corfield, F. V.
Glyn, Sir Richard


Bessell, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P. 
Goodhew, Victor 


Black, Sir Cyril
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gower, Raymond


Blaker, Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Dalkelth, Earl of 
Grant-Ferris, R.


Body, Richard
Dance, James
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grieve, Percy


Boyd-carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Braine, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gurden, Harold


Brewis, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, John(Wycombe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Doughty, Charles
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buchanan-Smith, Allick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Emery, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere




Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hastings, StephenMarten, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mawby, Ray
Sharpies, Richard


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Silvester Frederick


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hill, J. E. B.
Monro, Hector
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Stalnton, Keith


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hordern, Peter
Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles
Stodart, Anthony


Hornby, Richard
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Teeling Sir William


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Temple, John M.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Orr-Ewing Sir lan
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Pardoe, Johs
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Kimball, Marcus
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Viewers, Dame Joan


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peel, John
Wainwright, Richard (Come Valley)


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Kitson, Timothy
Peyton, John
Wall, Patrick


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walters, Dennis


Lambton, Viscount
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pounder, Rafton
Webster, David


Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfiled)
Pym, Francis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lubbock, Eric
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rawlinson, Ri. Hn. Sir Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacArthur, lan
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Worsley, Marcus


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


McMaster, Stanley
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hn. George


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Maginnis, John E.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Cant, R. B.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex


Alldritt, Walter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edelman, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Anderson, Donald
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter
Coe, Denis
Ellis, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Concannon, J. D.
Ennals, David


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Conlan, Bernard
Ensor, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Barnes, Michael
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Barnett, Joel
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Baxter, William
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bence, Cyril
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Foley, Maurice


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridge ton)
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Binns, John
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Forrester, John


Blackburn, F.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fowler, Gerry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Freeson, Reginald


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boyden, James
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gardner, Tony


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Delargy, Hugh
Garrett, W. E.


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Edmund
Gourlay, Harry


Brooks, Edwin
Dempsey, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dewar, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dickens, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Driberg, Tom
Hamling, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunn, James A.
Hannan, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)







Haseldine, Norman
MacPherton, Malcolm
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Hazeil, Bert
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Hudderfie1d,E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Manuel, Archie
Roebuck, Roy


Henig, Stanley
Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


Hooley, Frank
Marquand, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sheldon, Robert


Howie, W.
Mayhew, Christopher
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hoy, James
Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Slater, Joseph


Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'tt'pton, Test)
Small, William


Hynd, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Snow, Julian


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stonehouse, John


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jenkins, High (Putney)
Neil, Harold
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stan
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Norwood, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas Rt. Hn. George


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orme, Stanley
Thornton, Ernest


Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Tomney, Frank


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Urwin, T. W.


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Varley, Eric G.


Lawson, George
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ledger, Ron
Palmer, Arthur

Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Lee, John (Reading)
Park, Trevor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lipton, Marcus
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wellbeloved, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Whitlock, William


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mabon, Or, J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McCann, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacColl, James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Winnick, David


Macdonald, A. H.
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McGuire, Michael
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rees, Merlyn
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, Victor


Mackintosh, John P.
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Madclennan, Robert
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Charles Grey and


McNamara, J. Kevin
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Neil McBride.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Clause 103

POWER OF CERTAIN BODIES TO MAINTAIN OR TAKE OVER WATERWAYS AND CONNECTED WORKS

Amendments made: No. 411, in page 133, line 25. at end insert:
(f) the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board:
(g) the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

No. 412, in line 28, at end insert:
(g) a regional water board;
(h) a water development board.

No. 415, in line 39, after ' undertakers ' insert:
'or of any regional water board or water development board'.

No. 416, in line 42, after ' in' insert 'Scotland or in '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 104

THE INLAND WATERWAYS AMENITY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Amendments made: No. 417, in page 134, line 33, leave out:
' either under this section or section 100 of this Act'

and insert:
'under this section'.

No. 418, in line 12, leave out:
'section 100 of this Act and Schedule 13 thereto'

and insert:
'Schedule 13 to this Act '.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 105

POWER TO EXTINGUISH STATUTORY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IN RESPECT OF CANALS NOT BELONGING TO BOARD

Amendment made: No. 421, in page 136, line 10, at end insert:
' and any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 118

AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATION OF TRAFFIC

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 436, in page 152, line 8, leave out subsection (9) and insert:
(9) In section 12 of the principal Act (which enables a highway authority to impose a temporary prohibition or restriction on the use of a road by vehicles or by vehicles of any class in certain circumstances)—

(a) in subsections (1) and (2), after the words ' vehicles of any class' there shall in each case be inserted the words ' or by foot passengers';
(b) in subsection (1) (which enables such a prohibition or restriction to be imposed by reason of any works being executed or proposed to be executed on or near the road) after the words 'near the road' there shall be inserted the words ' or by reason of the likelihood of danger to the public or of serious damage to the highway'; 
(c) in subsection (3), after the words, 'section 1(3)', and in subsection (4) after the words ' section 1 (3)(a), (b) or  (c)', there shall in each case be inserted the words ' or (3A) '; 
(d) at the end of subsection (3) there shall be added the words ' but no such order or notice shall be made with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing at any time access for foot passengers to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road, or any other premises accessible for foot passengers from, and only from, the road'; 
(e) in subsection (9) (which imposes penal ties on a person who uses or permits the use of a vehicle in contravention of such a prohibition or restriction) after the word 'person' there shall be inserted the words 'who contravenes or'; 

and in Schedule 3 to the principal Act (which relates to the notification of the exercise or proposed exercise of the powers conferred by the said section 12 and otherwise in relation thereto), in paragraph 2, after the word 'vehicles' there shall be inserted the words 'or, as the case may be, foot passengers'.

This Amendment is further evidence of the extent to which the Government have listened to the arguments put in Committee and have responded to them. One of the things which saddens one is the

extent to which the Opposition have treated this generosity with such churlishness. This is only one of a number of Amendments we have put down to meet points raised in Committee.
Subsection (9) of the Clause amends Section 12(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, which provides for the temporary restriction of traffic on roads in connection with road works where damage or danger is likely. The proposed new subsection (9) incorporates the existing subsection (9) of the Clause and in addition seeks to make it possible to control passengers as well as vehicles under Section 12 of the 1967 Act. This is in response to Opposition Amendments moved in Committee.
The then Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the Opposition Amendments would be accepted in principle and would be further considered. We have done so and the result is this Amendment. It is designed to enable a local authority to control pedestrians under Section 12 of the 1967 Act. This is provided for in paragraph (a). Paragraph (d) provides that no Order or notice can be made with the effect of preventing at any time access by pedestrians to any premises. This matter had caused a great deal of consternation in Committee. Paragraph (e) provides for the penalty clause to apply to pedestrians contravening one of those Orders.
The remainder of Clause 118 remains as at present. This power will be chiefly used when it is dangerous to continue to allow foot passengers to use a road when works are being carried out—for example, repairs to a bridge. At present, a notice issued by a local authority purporting to control pedestrians has no legal backing and cannot be enforced. This new provision should remedy that defect.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous introduction. It is gratifying, as the Bill turns into the home stretch after all these months, to see that one has had some small part in getting so many words built into the legislation. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said—that this redrafting of the Clause is the direct result of pressure from the Opposition in the Standing Committee.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. In view of his enthusiasm for this sort of action, would he go on to explain why he made such a fuss about the number of Amendments on the Notice Paper, since most of them were on the same basis?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of concessions during the later parts of our debates. The depressing thing is that if he had been in the Standing Committee for earlier parts he would have had an opportunity to give way on a number of other matters as well. When he comes to consider further Amendments that may come on later stages of the Bill we hope that his common sense may prevail over the doctrinaire and ill-prepared legislation which came before he took over responsibility for the Department.
But it would be churlish of me not to accept this Amendment gracefully, and hon. Members opposite know that I am not churlish. I therefore have great pleasure in thanking the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 119

AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS AS TO PARKING PLACES

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 570, in page 154, line 35, leave out ' paragraphs ' and insert:
'paragraph—
(d) provided that adequate provision for off-street parking facilities in each local authority area has been made then such surplus may be applied to—
(i)'.
This Amendment deals with the question of how one should use the revenue from the parking meter scheme. In the Bill there are proposals that the present usage of surplus funds from parking meters, which is restricted by legislation to the provision of off-street parking, should be changed to permit a much wider usage as defined in this Bill.
Many hon. Members who were in the House at the time the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) introduced the necessary

legislation to establish parking meter schemes will remember the quite categorical assurance given by the Government of the day that the further taxation received from motorists, which is what this amounts to, would only be used for the provision of off-street parking.
There were wide-ranging debates and public argument at the time, and it was on the basis of the specific and categorical assurances given that large numbers of motorists were prepared to accept this new taxing system.
The House should understand that what is in the Bill is a major departure of principle from the purpose for which the parking meter scheme was set up. It is very important to remember this, bearing in mind that although at the moment the surplus revenue from parking meter schemes is not very much, and in many of the places where figures are available deficits are being incurred and it is only in the very largest conurbations that substantial surpluses are being thrown up, this situation is going to change for three reasons.
First, the number of oars is growing rapidly. Secondly, as local authorities become increasingly used to the sort of experience they are now obtaining from these schemes, they are very likely to put up the prices they charge for the use of parking space. Thirdly, the meter schemes are expanding into the wider areas within conurbations.
We can look forward, over the next decade or so, to a very large increase in the surpluses. We seek to ensure not quite such a restrictive situation as was first envisaged, but a much more reasonable compromise, in the light of current thinking about off-street parking. We do not want to restrict the use of surpluses from meters to the provision of off-street parking only. We want to restrict it to the provision of off-street parking until there are adequate provisions for such parking in each local authority. That seems a perfectly reasonable compromise.
We are anxious about the sort of usages, and the sort of people who might share these revenues. The legislation provides that local authorities can use this revenue, and that is accepted. It also provides for "any other person" to be the beneficiary of the surpluses and this raises some questions. What is


meant by "any other person"? One cannot help reflecting upon the sort of atmosphere and the sort of organisation which will exist in our cities once the P.T.A.S come into being.
What are the purposes to which the local authorities or the persons who are entitled to benefit will put these surpluses? The purpose, one would anticipate, is in the legislation—for the provision or operation of passenger transport services. Presumably, the owner of a car wishing to park in the city centre will find himself financing the deficits of the local buses. That is a logical step which many people might want to take. I do not want to argue that point.
What I do want to deal with is the second use to which this money may be put, in the hands of a local authority, or "any other person." This is where the permissive powers envisaged have been permitted to run wild. The money is not only for the provision or operation of passenger transport services, but also for the facilities associated with the public passenger transport services. Once again we have to go back to the P.T.A. part of the Bill to see what is envisaged by the word "facilities." If I were satisfied that those were strictly and tightly defined additions to the provision of bus services, I do not suppose that my anxiety would be as great as it is.
When those of us who have sat through the Committee reflect upon those 32 powers in Clause 10, dealing with the facilities, one can begin to understand why we have to ask this fundamental question about the purpose to which this parking meter revenue surplus will be put. I would remind the House of the facilities listed in Clause 10. There are filling stations, selling petrol, oil and spare parts, there is the provision of buffets, and also the operation of bookstalls. All these things have to run at break-even, not on a commercial, profitable basis. All these are defined as facilities ancillary to the provision of passenger transport services.
Now, in addition to being permitted to run at break-even, we find that they can be financed by the poor motorist, from parking meter revenue. This cannot seriously be part of the co-ordinated transport policy put forward by the

former Minister of Transport. It is conceivable, and I would accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance if he were to give it, that this interpretation of the legislation had not occurred to those drafting it.
11.30 p.m.
This has been a big Bill and has proceeded over a long time. It is understandable if every nuance of the legislation has not been thoroughly explored and tested. It would be reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to say that as we have had a Guillotine and a very proscribed Committee stage, and 50 Clauses have not been considered, it would not be surprising to the House if this Clause and the interpretation I place upon it had escaped attention. There would be time for the right hon. Gentleman to do something about it in another place and we would accept it in a generous spirit if he were able to make such a gesture.
I cannot seriously believe that with the experience of transport that he has gained—and we know that he has had a very brusque indoctrination in transport since he took over the Ministry—he is willing to tell 13 million motorists that they are now to pay their sixpences and shillings, and increasingly Is. 6d. and 2s., into the growing army of parking meters to finance buffets, petrol stations and bookstalls operated by local councils. That is what this legislation says can be done.
I regard it as a ludicrous interpretation of a transport policy and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to set our minds at rest. Despite this interpretation of law it is quite wrong that we should be breaching the very definite and categorical assurances that were given to motorists at the time when the parking meter scheme was first introduced. I do not need to read the quotations. Definite assurances were then given and I am not aware of any reason why those should yet be changed. There could come a time when there is sufficient off-street parking, even if because a local authority has decided, as a matter of policy, that it does not want to provide too much off-street parking.
That is already happening in the case of the Greater London Council. At that time, in the eyes of the local legislature,


there would be sufficient off-street parking. But there is a strong obligation on those administering the transport of this country to provide such parking up to the point of sufficiency as embraced and anticipated in the assurances given when the scheme was first set up.

Mr. Swingler: Mr. Swingler rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not want to repeat the speech I made in Standing Committee—

Mr. Leslie Hnckfield: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not rise to call attention to the fact that I was not called—and I was not—but I was standing at the same time as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was in some doubt whether the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) was seeking to raise a point or make a speech. He was only called, as far as the Chair is concerned, to make an intervention.

Mr. Swingler: I am sorry; had I known I would have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I did not think that he would wish to continue with this, because during the 45 sittings and 191½ hours spent in Standing Committee F this was one of the subjects which was very extensively discussed. I remember, as other hon. Gentlemen will, that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) raised precisely this issue of undertakings given by a previous Administration about the application of parking meter revenue. I remember replying at some length, on the issue of the proposal put forward in the White Paper dealing with public transport and traffic, on the reasons why we had come to this conclusion. On that occasion we did not have a very highly partisan debate. It has been left to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) to inject into this discussion his own particular brand of partisan spleen about public transport authorities. No doubt some wish to discuss it like this, but I do not.
Under the Bill, local authorities will have a statutory duty to provide parking space on and off the highway, but the powers are permissive. My right hon. Friend is not telling local authorities to

do anything. If they want to spend meter revenue on off-street parking space, this will be decided by local democracy. My right hon. Friend is just extending the flexibility for the motorists' benefit, so that the revenue may also be used on, for example, improvement of the highways. I do not understand the argument that this does not benefit the motorist.
11.30 p.m.
One of our purposes is to extend local authority flexibility in respect of road improvement. The other is that the local authorities can spend the money on improving public transport—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—because it is necessary to make public transport more efficient and attractive, if we are to benefit the motorist by decongesting the urban areas. I know that some hon. Gentlemen contest this because they want to continue the jungle warfare in this field, with total laisser faire, sweeping away any regulations in favour of chaos and a free-for-all. I do not try to persuade them, because they are opposed to the Bill from A to Z. But there are those who believe in traffic management and the part that public transport can play in reducing congestion. They can understand the recent London Transport poster comparing the street space occupied by one bus with that occupied by 60 cars, and they know that improving public transport to attract people to use it and make it viable is one of the ways to decongest the cities.
We do not say that local authorities should devote their money to these purposes but that they should be able to do so if they wish and may choose between more off-street parking space, if they can find it, and the improvement of public transport and its facilities. These are three ways in which they may invest parking meter revenue, all of which will benefit the motoring community. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I will not repeat the speech which I made in Committee, but this is a definite breach of a promise given by a previous Government. The Government are entitled to break it, but it was solemnly given to hon. Members, who agreed to the control of on-street parking only on the strength of that promise. There are many other systems, such as the zone system, and so


on, which would not have involved the same cost to the motorist. It was only because they were told that the balance of the money from parking meters would be used for off street parking that parking meters were agreed to.
If the Government like to retract that promise and use the money for other purposes they are entitled to do so, but I do not think it is a matter which we should pass without notice. It may be of some benefit to the motorist to use it for other purposes, but that was not the point.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I was just inquiring from one or two of my hon. Friends when such a promise was made. If this promise was made it was not made by this Government, but by the Government which introduced parking meters. The hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts straight. Parking meters were first brought in in 1964.

Mr. Wilson: I am most grateful. I said that. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who introduced them and gave the categorical assurance in this House.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: When the hon. Gentleman reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of my hon. Friend's remarks he will see that he made that clear.

Mr. Huckfield: If I may intervene in my own speech, it has been placed on record that he made this promise.
I would be happier if hon. Gentlemen opposite would concern themselves more with where some of the revenue collected from private parking schemes is going. I am thinking particularly of the private company that springs up every time there is a motor show or a boat show or some other national sporting event and charge 5s. Od. or 7s. 6d.—in fact, imposing a prohibitive charge.
The principle embodied in this section of the Bill, to take some of the parking meter revenue and spend it on public transport, is a very sensible suggestion. Unless we can make public transport facilities more attractive and effective it would seem that the only alternative, as has been suggested from time to time by hon. Members opposite, is to subsidise it from the rates or taxes. I would

have thought a more attractive revenue would be from parking meter charges.
If hon. Members opposite do not like this, from time to time various sections of their party have suggested that some kind of congestion taxes should be imposed on the private motorist and spent in this way. They must come to some conclusion on this. This is one of the most sensible solutions we have had on planning urban transport for many a year.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Minister gave a miserable reply to an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). Why cannot the hon. Gentleman occasionally be given power to accept Opposition Amendments? The right hon. Gentleman does all the giving way when the Government wish to accept our proposals, and he leaves it to the Minister of State to make the miserable and negative replies.
I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). Will no hon. Gentleman opposite argue in support of the private enterprise shopkeeper who contributes more than anyone to the local rates and thereby provides the local amenities? I concede that the surplus income from parking meters, if any, should be properly spent on, for example, off-street parking facilities, highway improvements to keep through-traffic moving and in other ways to improve traffic flow.
But I am not prepared to concede that that surplus, if any, should be spent on what are called "the facilities" when that phrase means the setting up by local authorities of cafes which might make a loss and which will be run in competition with private enterprise cafe's which contribute to the rates. I am not prepared to concede that the surplus, if any, should be spent on establishing book shops to be operated, with subsidy, in competition with genuine private enterprise organisations which must work hard to make a profit on which taxes and rates are levied. There is no monopoly about a private enterprise organisation which has half-a-dozen book shops.
I know of a town in the Midlands which desperately needed a multi-storey car park. The corporation tried to get a number of firms interested in building the


car park because it could not afford to build it out of the rates. Eventually, a private enterprise firm was persuaded to build it. There had not been a lot of interest among firms to take on the project because it was felt that the car park would not pay. However, in return for this firm agreeing to build it—this was not known until later—the corporation promised to paint double yellow lines on all the surrounding streets, so obliging people to park their cars in the multi-storey car park, so making the car park a paying proposition.
From the point of view of the multi-storey car park, that was fine and it was the sort of inducement which persuaded the company concerned to build it. But for the shopkeepers in the area, their business was restricted and the presence of the double yellow lines severely handicapped them. The rateable value of their property declined and their turnover went down. In using its power to virtually subsidise one firm, the local authority acted generously towards one company but ungenerously towards others, some of which were pushed out of business.
This sort of thing will be encouraged on an even greater scale if the surpluses of parking meters are spent on providing cafes and the other so-called amenities hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. We who represent retail shopkeepers throughout the country—a section of the community whose rates and taxes are unequalled by any other section—should see that their affairs are taken into account. I urge the Minister to think again. The surplus, if there is one, should be restricted to the roads—to improving our highways and transport system—but it should not involve a possible subsidy which could provide unfair competition to private enterprise retailers in our shopping streets.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman is concerned only with the Co-op. I am not against it, but I am also in favour of the private shopkeeper. I do not think that unfair subsidisation of this sort should make his job any more difficult.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: 1 disagree with the sentiments expressed by the bon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls),

because I believe that, in legislation, we should apply the simple Benthanite principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. The hon. Baronet is concerned about the individual shopkeeper. I think that we should be concerned for the good of the community as a whole.
It is obvious that what is needed in this modern age is a swift improvement in public transport. That does not militate against the individual private shopkeeper or motorist, because one of the problems facing shop owners in big city centres is that people cannot get to their shops because of congestion in the streets. A good example of the effect that this is having arose in Manchester, where a large concern closed down its premises and moved out to Wilmslow, where it was free from traffic congestion.
Nor is there much substance in the argument of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) about a promise made in a previous Parliament. It would be standing our constitutional principles on their heads if it were suggested that one Parliament could not undo what a previous one had done, or that Parliament was not sovereign. It would mean that decisions taken many years ago when circumstances were different would become fossilised.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State say that, to a large extent, decisions would be left to local authorities. Surely everyone wants to see local decisions affecting local people made by the people on the spot, and not by gentlemen in Whitehall or Westminster.
For those reasons, I support what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I approach the Amendment from a slightly different angle, and it is one which is of great importance in my constituency. It concerns the provision of off-street car parking in the areas of outer London from which commuters travel in large numbers to work in the centre.
I think that it is true to say that more people from my constituency than from any other area of outer London travel daily to offices in Central London. At our local station, however, car parking facilities are totally inadequate. As a result, all the residential streets in the


neighbourhood of the station are crowded with commuters' cars which are left there all day. One can imagine how annoying this is, not only to the ordinary private householders but to people like doctors, who find that they are unable to get their own cars out of their drives because the accesses are blocked by commuters' cars.
The situation has been getting worse in the last few years as car ownership has increased. For some reason, it is not a matter of mutual interest to the local authority and British Railways. Surely the sensible solution would be for British Railways, with a substantial area of land round the station, to provide parking facilities jointly with the local authority. The local authority provides free car parking which is intended for shoppers in the High Street, but it is taken up by commuters' cars.
British Railways have a great deal of land conveniently situated to the station where they charge £3 5s. a quarter for a season ticket. This is an anomaly. If facilities were provided jointly, first, cars would be kept off the streets, and, second, facilities in the neighbourhood of the shopping area could be kept for the use of shoppers and not taken up by commuters. More reasonable charges of commuters and shoppers could be made by means of the joint provision of these facilities. I tried for a long time to interest British Railways in such a scheme whereby their land could be used but some payment would come from the local authority for the use of those facilities. This could be considered under this Clause.
I do not go all the way with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who said that provision might be made for cafes and book shops. That is a far-fetched example. It could well be that money spent under paragraph (e)
purposes of a project connected with the carrying out by the appropriate highway authority (whether or not the local authority) of any operation which within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959 constitutes the improvement of a highway in the local authority's area
—which, after all, is extremely broad, though not necessarily including cafes and book shops—could include operations which would siphon off profits from the essential provision of car parks.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The previous paragraph says:
meeting costs incurred, whether by the local authority or by some other person, in the provision or operation of, or of facilities for, public passenger transport services
Facilities for public passenger transport include trade.

Mr. Lubbock: I agree that the words may have the interpretation ascribed to them by the hon. Member, but it is highly unlikely that anything of the kind he mentioned would be carried out and the amount of money spent on them is probably minimal, but paragraph (e) is far the more important of these two paragraphs.
The hon. Member and I are not quarrelling with one another. We agree that the first thing to do is to provide adequate off-street car parking. Until we have done that we should not visualise any of the other purposes envisaged in paragraphs (d) and (e). If the Government are not to encourage local authorities and transport undertakings to get together in the manner I have suggested, which would make a very significant contribution towards decreasing congestion in Central London, they are severely to blame. The one way in which congestion in the centre of large cities can be relieved is to make it more convenient for commuters to leave their cars in surburban areas and travel into the centre by train or bus.

Mr. Harry Howarth: Does not the hon. Member agree that London Transport is doing a tremendous amount in this respect and that all over the area car parks are made available for this purpose?

Mr. Lubbock: I have had considerable discussion with London Transport and I have talked to Mr. Holmes about it. He has told me of the schemes undertaken, but he would be the first to admit that those schemes are nothing like adequate for the number of car owners who would use the facilities if they were provided more extensively.
I will be parochial and say that Orpington is particularly important because of the number of commuters who come from there, but the same is true of Watford and other places.

Mr. Roebuck: Stanmore.

Mr. Lubbock: Stanmore as well. London Transport has land available in those places. I hope that the Government will respond favourably and assure us that the other purposes mentioned in paragraphs (d) and (e) will not be carried out until there is more adequate provision for off-street parking in Greater London.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) for not being here at the beginning of his speech. On this matter there is a world of difference between the two sides of the House. I, and, I think, the majority of us on this side, are all in favour of municipal enterprise. I would like to see an extension of municipal enterprise, even if it means using the money to take over or open up restaurants and what have you. I am speaking personally and for myself now.
What I was saying to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) was that, although he is so afraid of municipal enterprise, some of the greatest Tory-controlled local authorities are operating municipal enterprise

and we never hear a word of complaint about it from hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House. I refer to Birmingham, Bournemouth, Folkestone, Torquay and various seaside resorts which have their own catering establishments—and are doing a real good job of work. I would like to see greater extension of this and I hope the Bill will encourage local authorities to do it.

Mr. Bessell: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the money for that is not being provided out of the pockets of motorists? That, I think, was the point of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

Mr. Lewis: With all respect to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), I do not think that it makes any difference, provided we get extension of municipal enterprise. What was the difference between the money coming out of the pockets of the motorists or out of the pockets of the ratepayers, when those municipal enterprises were set up at the various seaside resorts?

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 256.

Division No. 201.]
AYES
[11.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Allason, James (Kernel Hempstead)
Chichestcr-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Astor, John
Clark, Henry
Glyn, Sir Richard


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clegg, Walter
Goober, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Goodhew, Victor


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Corfield, F. V.
Gower, Raymond


Balniel, Lord
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Crouch, David
Grant-Ferris, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crowder, F. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bell, Ronald
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Grieve, Percy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bessell, Peter
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Biffen, John
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Blaker, Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Body, Richard
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward 
Eden, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen 


Braine, Bernard
Elliot Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hawkins, Paul 


Brawls, John
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel 


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Errington, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Higgins, Terence L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel
Hiley, Joseph


Bryan, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hill, J. E. B.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Fortescue, Tim
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Foster, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'ftord &amp; Stone)
Hooson, Emlyn


Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hordern, Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Gibson-Watt, David
Hornby, Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Howell, David (Guildford)




Hunt, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sinclair, Sir George


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck &amp; L'mington)


Iremonger, T. L.
Murton, Oscar
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stainton, Keith


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nott, John
Stodart, Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tapsell, Peter


Kershaw, Anthony
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kirk, Peter
Pardoe, John
Teeling, Sir William


Kitson, Timothy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Temple, John M.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peel, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lambton, Viscount
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lane, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pink, R. Bonner
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pounder, Rafton
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wall, Patrick


Lubbock, Eric
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walters, Dennis


MacArthur, Ian
Prior, J. M. L.
Webster, David


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winstanley, Dr. M. p.


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Royle, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Russell, Sir Roland
Wylie, N. R.


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas



Monro, Hector
Scott-Hopkins, James



Montgomery, Fergus
Sharpies, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fowler, Gerry


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Alldritt, Walter
Cronin, John
Freeson, Reginald


Allen, Scholefield
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Galpern, Sir Myer


Anderson, Donald
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gardner, Tony


Archer, Peter
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Garrett, W. E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gregory, Arnold


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, David (Rother, Valley)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hannan, William


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dell, Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Binns, John
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bishop, E. S.
Dewar, Donald



Blackburn, F.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Haseldine, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dickens, James
Hattersley, Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dobson, Ray
Hazell, Bert


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Boyden, James
Driberg, Tom
Hooley, Frank


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunn, James A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Brooks, Edwin
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howie, W.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Hoy, James


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ennals, David
Hunter, Adam


Cant. R. B.
Ensor, David
Hynd, John


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Coe, Denis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Foley, Maurice
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forrester, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)







Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sheldon, Robert


Jones, T. Aleu (Rhondda, West)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Judd, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Kerr, Mrs. Arme (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lawson, George
Murray, Albert
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ledger, Ron
Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph


Lee, John (Reading)
Newens, Stan
Small, William


Lestor, Miss Joan
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Snow, Julian


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Norwood, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Lipton, Marcus
O'Malley, Brian
Storehouse, John


Lomas, Kenneth
Orme, Stanley
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Swain, Thomas


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Swingler, Stephen


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Taverne, Dick


McBride, Neli
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


McCann, John
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


MacColl, James
Park, Trevor
Tomney, Frank


MacDermot, Niall
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Urwin, T. W.


Macdonald, A. H.
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackie, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackintosh, John P.
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Whitlock, William


McNamara, J.Kevin
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rees, Merlyn
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Manuel, Archie
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Marks, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marquand, David
Richard, Ivor
Winnick, David


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Mayhew, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Yates, Victor


Mendelson, J. J.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)



Mikardo, lan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millan, Bruce
Roebuck, Roy
Mr.Charles Grey and


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul
Mr. Ioan L. Evans

Clause 123

ENFORCEMENT—FIXED PENALTIES AND TRAFFIC WARDENS

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move Amendment No. 437, in page 164, line 9, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the Government Amendment No. 438, in page 164, line 12, after ' order'. insert:
and subject to the provisions of sub-section (4B) below'.
Opposition Amendment No. 439, in page 164, leave out lines 28 and 29 and the Government Amendment No. 440, in page 164, line 42, at end insert:
(4B) Any power of a constable for the purpose of the following provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1960, namely, sections 223, 225(1) and (4) and 226, shall be exercisable by a traffic warden under an order made by virtue of subsection (4A) above only where—


(a) the traffic warden is assisting a constable; or
(b) the traffic warden has reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed of a description specified in relation to the section in question for the purposes of this paragraph by the order and. in the case of a power for the purposes of the said section 226, the order authorises the use of that power in relation to that offence; or

(c) in the case of a power for the purposes of the said section 223, the traffic warden in exercising functions in connection with the control and regulation of traffic (including foot passengers) or vehicles.

Mr. Morgan: Amendments Nos. 437 and 438 are paving Amendments to No. 440. Amendment No. 440 seeks to amend Clause 123, which itself amends Sections 80 and 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967. Part of the amendment already embodied in the Clause deals with the extension of the fixed penalty system, with which we are not concerned at the moment. The second part of Clause 123—subsections (2), (3) and (4) has the effect of extend-


ing the functions and powers of traffic wardens.
The purpose of Amendment No. 440 is to place additional statutory restrictions upon the power and authority of the Home Secretary to make functions Orders in this connection. When Clause 123 was published, fears were expressed that the Home Secretary would be enabled by it to give traffic wardens a wide ranging general discretion to stop vehicles and inspect documents. It is hoped that this Amendment will have the effect of allaying those fears.
The Amendment operates by making the exercise of certain powers granted by Clause 123, namely, powers to stop vehicles, powers on the part of traffic wardens to require the giving of particulars and the production of documents, and the exercise of those powers, conditional upon the existence of certain circumstances.
These circumstances are threefold. All are alternative. The first condition is that the traffic warden is assisting a constable. Second, that the traffic warden has reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed, of a description specified in relation to this Section for purposes of this paragraph by the Order. In the case of a power for the purpose of Sections 225(1) and (4) and 226 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 the Order must authorise the use of the power in relation to an offence.
Third, to exercise the power under Section 223 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, —that is, the power of arbitrarily stopping a vehicle, which is at present vested in a police constable—the traffic warden must also be exercising functions in connection with the control and regulation of traffic, including foot passengers or vehicles.
The primary effect of the law if this Amendment is carried can, I believe, be summarised under three headings.

Mr. Peter Walker: We are most grateful for this excellent explanation, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House are very much in favour of this Amendment and doubtless so is the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends; so perhaps we can do without this very long explanation.

Mr. Morgan: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should even apologise, since I doubt very much whether these Amendments have the clash of doctrinal confrontation such as the most interesting one with which we dealt earlier.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The reason we are so keen on these Amendments is because we moved them in Committee.

Mr. Morgan: That is certainly not true. I have studied very carefully the debate which occurred on what was Clause 146 of the original Bill. The position can be summarised in these categories in this way: first, traffic wardens can only be used in matters relating to traffic and vehicles. This was the one point that was raised under Clause 146 in Committee and I belabour it because I have no doubt it will save a great deal of argument elsewhere on this particular matter.
I stress again, as was stressed in Committee, that there is no question at all of traffic wardens exercising any general duties, and no question of them taking any part in the maintenance of public order. Secondly, the activities in respect of which they can exercise their powers.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Bessell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We discussed upstairs the question whether traffic wardens should have the right of arrest and the Minister of State said that they would not. I have always understood, and 1 believe that the hon. Gentleman may be able to accept it, that every citizen has the right of arrest.

Mr. Morgan: Yes, that is so. There is no question of traffic wardens having any right of search or arrest other than the ordinary citizen's existing power of arrest or search.
The Clause gives wardens no powers, but within these narrow limits the Home Secretary can make certain function Orders. Two such Orders have been made, in 1960 and 1965, and were affirmative Orders agreed by both Houses. The powers under which the Orders may be made fall into three groups—first, those relating to stopping, controlling and directing traffic, second, those enabling wardens to require the


production of licences, insurance certificates and test certificates or requiring drivers and others to give names and addresses, and, third, the power to give evidence under Section 242 of the 1960 Act, where an admission about the driving or ownership of a vehicle has been made by any person.
Although this is an Amendment to an Amendment, and therefore is not entirely uncomplicated, it sets out the narrow limits within which the Home Secretary may make these function Orders. It does not enable wardens to operate on a general roving commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 438, in page 164, line 12, after ' order ', insert:
and subject to the provisions of subsection (4B) below '.

No. 440, in page 164, line 42, at end insert:
(4B) Any power of a constable for the purposes of the following provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1960, namely, sections 223, 225(1) and (4) arid 226, shall be exercisable by a traffic warden under an order made by virtue of subsection (4A) above only where—

(a) the traffic warden is assisting a constable; or
(b) the traffic warden has reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been committed of a description specified in relation to the section in question for the purposes of this paragraph by the order and, in the case of a power for the purposes of the said section 226, the order authorizes the use of that power in relation to that offence; or
(c) in the case of a power for the purposes of the said section 223, the traffic warden is exercising functions in connection with the control and regulation of traffic (including foot passengers)orvehicles.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 441, in page 164, line 42, at end insert:
(5) In the Police Act of 194 the provisions of section 30 (which allows the Home Secretary to require certain information from chief constables) shall extend to matters connected with the activities of traffic wardens, and the provisions of section 49 and section 50 (which establishes the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police) shall extend to complaints against traffic wardens.
This is a simple Amendment, and I am sure that it will be acceptable to the Government. Following our discussions about the extended powers of traffic wardens, it would simply bring them under

the same jurisdiction and appeals system as the police. Now that traffic wardens, in certain activities, are on all fours with the police, they should be covered by the same principles. The Police Act gives the Secretary of State the right to obtain reports from Chief Constables on specified matters, and, under Sections 49 and 50, it is mandatory that such complaints shall be investigated and local constabularies shall be compelled to keep themselves informed about the way in which the complaints from the public are dealt with. This is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I concede that this is a very simple Amendment, but that does not mean that it is either necessary or desirable.
Briefly, the reasons for resisting this Amendment, as I invite the House to do, are these. The provisions under Section 49 of the Police Act, 1964, do not stand by themselves. They are part of a comprehensive code of discipline which is referred to in Section 33 of the Police Act under which regulations are made. I do not think anyone should look at Section 49 of the 1964 Act alone, as if this constituted the total machinery of discipline insofar as the police are concerned.
Secondly, even though in this Bill we are somewhat widening—the House agrees to that—the functions and powers of traffic wardens, no hon. Member would argue that those have been widened to such an extent as to compare with the tremendous scope of responsibilities and powers which the police have. As has already been pointed out, a police officer has power of arrest, of search, of entry, of detention of property and a multifarious range of other duties with regard to non-traffic offences. The range of duties which fall to the lot of traffic wardens, even extended by function orders as a result of Clause 123 of the Bill, will not be of the same scope as those already enjoyed by police officers, therefore the solemn and formal machinery set up under Section 49 of the Police Act would not be necessary.
Again, the machinery under Section 50 of the Act which requires chief officers and inspectors of constabulary to keep themselves informed regarding complaints about members of a force are not called for as chief officers already do this.
Thirdly, as far as the power of the Home Secretary for reports under Section 30 of the Police Act is concerned, it is my contention—and I trust the House will agree—that already this includes the power to call for reports in relation to traffic wardens. The Section deals with matters connected with policing in the areas of the particular chief officers of police. Since traffic wardens may act only under the direction of chief constables, and for traffic and traffic law

enforcement prescribed by the Secretary of State, all conceivable traffic warden duties would appear to be connected with the policing of the chief officer's area and already within the scope of that Section. Specific reference in Clause 123 as proposed in the Amendment would be otiose and I ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 214; Noes 248.

Division No. 202.]
AYES
[12.24 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Astor, John
Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Foster, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maddan, Martin


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.


Batsford, Brian
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Marten, Neil


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Berry, Hn. Anthony
G'yn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bessell, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Body, Richard
Cresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eve)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bryan, Paul
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hawkins, Paul
Pardoe John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Burden, F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peel, John


Campbell, Gordon
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, Henry
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Corfield, F. V.
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whithy)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Silvester, Frederick



Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)




Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winstanley, Or. M. P.


Stainton, Keith
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stodart, Anthony
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Wylie, N. R.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Webster, David



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Teeling, Sir William
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Temple, John M.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth


Alldritt, Walter
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, William (Mrioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
McBride, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
McCann, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ensor, David
MacColl, James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacDermot, Niall


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Foley, Maurice
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Binns, John
Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert


Bishop, E. s.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Booth, Albert
Garrett, W. E.
Mallatieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Boyden, James
Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Manuel, Archie


Bradley, Tom
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marks, Kenneth


Brooks, Edwin
Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamling, William
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Charies R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland


Concannon, J. D.
Howie, W.
Murray, Albert


Conlan, Bernard
Hoy, James
Neal, Harold


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Huckfield, Leslie
Newens, Stan


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Norwood, Christopher


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ogden, Eric


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hynd, John
Oswald, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.



Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt Hn. John
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battcrsea, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)



Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Driberg, Tom
Ledger, Ron
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John (Reading)
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rankin, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Reynolds, G. W.







Richard, Ivor
Snow, Juliar
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Robertt, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitlock, William


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Storehouse, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Roebuck, Roy
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rose, Paul
Swingler, Stephen
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Urwin, T. W.
Yates, Victor


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Varley, Eric G.



Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Silver-man, Julius (Aston)
Walden, Brian (Alt Saints)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, Joseph
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Small, William
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ioan Evans.

Clause 126

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 442, in page 165, line 41, at end insert:
(b) the revocation under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 6 to this Act of any consent; or.
I think that we can make progress very quickly on this very simple Amendment. We are seeking an entirely permissive power to be built into the legislation. It is merely to add certain words to Clause 126 which provides for compensation for loss of employment in certain specified circumstances. We wish to provide that any operator who loses his licence under a passenger transport authority shall be eligible under Schedule 6 provisions— there is nothing to suggest that it should be mandatory—for compensation under this Clause.
Where an operator loses his licence under Schedule 6 when he has been operating under a passenger transport authority, he might want to sell his business to the authority. By the normal means of valuing the business it could easily be that the net profits could be multiplied in a given formula, but an owner driver would get no compensation and he could find no alternative employment. It seems reasonable that the authority should take this into account and, if it thought that there was a case for compensation, to pay that compensation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There is a generally accepted workable administration

system which both parties have operated on the question of compensation. To widen the traditional limits for compensation in nationalisation would open a great deal of difficulty, not least the consequences to the public purse. I must ask the Opposition to think again about this.

I know that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is playing a new rôle, but he is far too modest in thinking that this would be a minor adjustment. It would be a great departure from the traditional forms of compensation which both parties have accepted for 20 years.

This Amendment would widen the provisions of Clause 126 relating to statutory compensation so that a person who suffers a loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pensions rights or worsening of his position which is attributable to the revocation of an operator's licence by a P.T.A. may become entitled to such compensation. I want the Opposition to think more about this. It would be quite wrong to bring these circumstances within the ambit of Clause 126. This is a new departure proposed by the Opposition.

I should like to think that this is a probing Amendment to open up a field of discussion, but I strongly counsel the House not to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That that Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 244.

Division No. 203.]
AYES
[12.34 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) 
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) 
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K.(Banff) 
Bell, Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n) 
Balniel, Lord
Berry, Hn. Anthony




Bessell, Peter
Hall-Davis, A G. F.
Pardoe, John


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Co,. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Peyton, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Pounder, Rafton


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Brewis, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brown, Sir Edward(Bath)
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David 


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Campbell, Gordon
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Scott, Nicholas



Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Micheal(Sc'b'h &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir Geroge


Corfield, F.V.
King, Evleyn (Dorest, S.)
Smith, Dudely (W'Wick &amp; L'mington)


Costain, A.P.
Kirk, Peter
Smith, John (London &amp; W' minster)


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James.
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas 
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Vickers, Dame Joan


Erringthon, Sir Eric
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Peter (Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Wall, patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Walter, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Webster, David


Foster, Sir, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galbraith, Hn. T.G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Giles, Rear-Adam, Morgan
More, Jasper
Wills, Sir Gerlad (Bridgwater)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk)




Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Alrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Cower, Raymond
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nott, John.
Younger, Hn. George


Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley



Grieve, Percy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. R. W. Elliot and


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Hector Monro




NOES


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Aldritt, Walter
Binns, John
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Booth, Albert
Cant, R. B.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James
Carmichael, Neil


Barnes, Michael
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Joel
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Bence, Cyril
Brooks, Edwin
Coe, Denis


Benn. Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Coleman, Donald







Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Park, Trevor


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.) 
Pavitt, Laurence


Cro[...]sman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Strctford)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham) 
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John



Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


Dempsey, James
Ledger, Ron
Reynolds, G. W.


Dewar, Donald
Lee, John (Reading)
Richard, Ivor


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dickens, James
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roebuck, Roy


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; c'b'e)
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
MacDermot, Niall
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Macdonald, A. H.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, John
McGuire, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ensor, David
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Stonehouse, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersflield, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand David
Taverne, Dick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Gardner, Tony
Mason, Rt.Hn. Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Garrett, W. E.
Mayhew, Chirstopher
Tinn, James


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Urwin, T. W.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millian, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gregory, Arnold

Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Griffths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edwsrd(Blyth)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
wellbeloved, James


Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
whitlock, William


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Haseldine, Norman
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Albert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hazell, Bert 
Neal, Harold
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Newens, Stan
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Norwood, Christopher
Winnick, David


Howie, W.
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Hoy, James
O'Malley, Brian
Yates, Victor


Huckfleld, Leslie
Orme, Stanley



Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Loan L. Evans and


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Clause 128

MACHINERY FOR NEGOTIATION AND CONSULTATION WITH STAFF

12.45 a.m.

Mr. James Bennett: I beg to move— [Interruption]—I do not deserve applause except, perhaps, because I have shown

such exemplary patience. At last I am on my feet, talking at last about one of my Amendments.

I beg to move Amendment No. 514, in page 168, line 34, at end insert ' and their subsidiaries'.

Mr. Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House if, with this


Amendment, we also include Amendments 515, in page 168, line 35, at end insert ' and their subsidiaries ';
No. 516, in page 168, line 37, at end insert ' and their subsidiaries ';
No. 517, in page 168, line 38, after 'authority ', insert' and its subsidiaries ';
No. 518, in page 168, line 42, leave out from ' levels ' to ' it' in line 43;
No. 519, in page 168, line 45, leave out from 'any' to 'with' in line 1, page 169 and insert 'recognised and bona fide trade unions or unions approved by the Trades Union Congress ';
No. 520, in page 169, line 2, leave out 'if the authority so decides ';
No. 521, in page 169, line 13, after 'of' insert 'joint';
No. 522, in page 169, line 19, after 'of', insert 'joint';
No. 523, in page 169, line 21, at end insert:
(d) the joint control over the engagement and displacement of servants employed by the authority, whether directly or by a subsidiary of that authority;
No. 524, in page 169, line 43, to leave out ' by other persons participating therein' and insert ' with the workers' representatives';
No. 525, in page 170, line 1, leave out 'such';
No. 526, in page 170, line 3, leave out from 'as' to end of line 5 and insert:
'which shall include, as requested by the trade unions concerned—

(a) pay, to include payroll details, methods of payment of servants, managerial, board members and directors emoluments.
(b) labour, to include the number of servants employed by the authority and its subsidiaries, breakdowns of the number of servants employed in each category or grade, changes in methods of work, and labour use, labour turnover, future labour plans, absence and sickness rates, and accident statistics.
(c) finance and production, to include, labour costs per unit of output, cost and pricing structures, financial and production information about the authority or any of its sub-units including industrial plants and garages, turnover, future investments and future investment policies, purchasing policies, and ownership in associated companies and subsidiaries.
(d) promotion, to include the changes in the structure of management, promotion methods and policy.

(e) training, training policy for the shop-floor, technical and management grades.
(f) any other information which after consultation with the workers' representatives concerned is necessary to enable those persons to participate effectively in the discussion.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clause 128 deals with the machinery for negotiation and consultation with the staff, and this group of Amendments sets out means for strengthening those processes. The National Freight Corporation will no doubt set up its subsidiaries and, that being so, it may well be that those subsidiaries will act independently of the parent body. So it is essential that consultation with the staff should take place at the appropriate level and not be constantly referred to that parent body.
These Amendments are quite simple inasmuch as they set out to do this. It may be argued that subsidiaries are nowhere mentioned in the Bill, but I think that they will be established; and that is why these Amendments are moved. In Amendment No. 519, the object is to make for clarity. This is why I have brought forward the Amendments. The Clause says:
… any organisation appearing to them"—
the authorities—
to be appropriate …
This is vague. I would prefer the stronger wording of my Amendment. Everyone recognises the value of joint consultation, especially in these days. The Clause gives ample scope for it. The Amendments would provide a system whereby the employees could feel part of the undertaking and not outwith it.
Amendment No. 526 deals with the information that the unions should have if they are to take in discussions. I remind my right hon. Friend that the Labour Party issued a document dealing with industrial democracy and I quote from it in the hope that he may feel able to accept my Amendments. It said:
It should be a primary aim of the industries under public ownership to give the lead in enabling the worker to realise his individual potential…
democratic participation, education and training and promotion arrangements are involved … … the time is ripe for a serious attempt to widen the area of common decision-taking and acceptance of responsibility—in place of managerial 'prerogatives'.


An extension of worker participation backed by industrial training and the provision of relevant information by the managements will make an important contribution to industrial efficiency.
No one will quarrel with that outlook and the Amendments would embrace it in the Bill. They would make a substantial contribution to increasing the participation of workers in industry. It is an aim which the Government have professed more than once.

Mr. Swingler: At this hour it is a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend who was such an active and able member of the Standing Committee. He and I up to this point have spent a total of roughly 220 hours examining this Bill in Committee and on the Report stage; and we have a little time to go yet.
Since everybody in the House knows of his wide experience and knowledge of the road transport industry, we have naturally considered any Amendments which he has put down in the course of the Bill with very great care. Having considered these Amendments I have to tell my hon. Friend and the House that on re-examination of Clause 128 of this Bill we consider that it provides for the machinery for negotiation and consultation with the staff and that his Amendments are unnecessary.
I will go straight to the heart of Clause 128(2), which applies to the Railways Board, the Waterways Board, the Transport Holding Company, new authorities and the P.T.Es. It states that:
it shall be the duty of the authority, either directly, or indirectly by exercising control over subsidiaries, to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between the authority and that organisation … of such agreements … as appear to be desirable …" etc.
I would make to my hon. Friend the point that we have put emphasis on "indirectly by exercising control over subsidiaries", namely that where an organisation like, for example, the Transport Holding Company and, as he correctly thinks, some of the authorities established under this Bill, is organised mainly through subsidiary organisations, clearly the duty is placed on the authority to exercise control over all their subsidiary organisations to seek consultation with the trade unions to establish appropriate machinery. And then there are set out the three aims and objects,

first for machinery for settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment. That is the main point. Secondly:
the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting efficiency and the promotion and encouragement of the training of persons employed.
Thirdly:
the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed.
All these main objects are set out in the Bill. First, we want to ensure that in the case of all these authorities machinery is established, either at national level or through control exercised by any holding company over its subsidiaries. That holding company has, of course, the authority to ensure that joint consultative machinery will be established. It will cover negotiation and bargaining on pay and conditions, and the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting efficiency, productivity, training, safety, health and welfare.
I believe that on re-examination and consideration my hon. Friend will find that all the points with which he is concerned are covered here in the Bill; and he has the assurance that those words in the Bill mean that in the case of all authorities organised in the form of subsidiary undertakings, those undertakings will be directed by the national authority to establish the joint consultative machinery which he and I wish to see established.

Mr. James Bennett: In the light of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 129

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 444, in page 170, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 and insert:
'and the Executive shall only enter into such arrangements where they form part of an overall plan approved by the Authority for the designated area'.

Mr. Speaker: It would be in order, I think, to discuss with this Amendment


Amendment No. 445, in page 171, line 23, at end insert:
(3A) Any arrangements entered into by a local authority under subsection (3) of this section shall include provision that all the relevant travel concessions are available on each comparable service operating over the route, or in the area in question;
No. 446, in page 171, line 46, at end insert:
' and it shall be within the power of the local authority to introduce a scheme that would discriminate between one person and another so as to concentrate their concessions on those persons with the greatest need';
No. 447, in page 172, line 18, leave out from ' commissioners' to end of line 19;
No. 448, in page 172, line 20, leave out ' or Minister'.

Mr. Heseltine: We would like to see various improvements in this Clause, which duals with travel concessions. I should make it clear that many of these Amendments are essentially probing Amendments, because there is room for further discussion. Every hon. Member representing a rural constituency must face up to this problem, so it is worth discussing this important and, I hope, non-political issue.
The Clause enables passenger transport executives to make agreements with each local authority in that area independently for travel concessions, so many different arrangements could be made, giving a patchwork quilt effect in many of the big cities. This is the situation at present, and it causes concern, and this is what Amendment No. 444 is designed to deal with. I hope that I will not be told that this is a wrecking Amendment, in the sense that it would provide that no one could have concessionary fares until everyone had them, since I said that it is a probing Amendment.
I want the more forward-looking authorities in each area to be the pacesetters. If they can reach these agreements only upon a uniform plan for the area, the impetus of these authorities will be towards the creation and adoption of such a plan. I hope the House will accept the point in the spirit in which I make it, especially when I say that the other possible interpretation of the wording is not intended.
The Amendment would lead to the introduction into the great conurbations more quickly than any other way of comprehensive and identical schemes. Without it, the better authorities would adopt their schemes, which many have now, and the more wayward authorities would be less likely to do so. So the first object is to speed things up.
The second is to make the practice of the best authorities the uniform practice. This will happen if all authorities come together under the umbrella of the passenger transport authority and the more enlightened authorities and argue with the authorities which are not so keen on these schemes to persuade them to accept the standards prevailing in the good authorities. Thus, the Amendment will have a beneficial effect in these areas.
The object of Amendment No. 445 is equally clear. This deals with the second great dilemma of travel concessions. Often they do not refer to all the buses on a particular route. They cannot, as a subsidy from the rates, be paid to private operators. If they are paid to local operators of municipal buses there is the difficulty of varying boundaries and concessions between two municipal undertakings and it becomes a hotch potch arrangement which everybody agrees is undesirable.
If it were necessary for the scheme adopted in an area to be uniform in pattern all the good authorities would bring up to their own level the scheme finally adopted, and they would use the pressure of trying to continue with existing schemes to persuade wayward colleagues to join them.
First it will co-ordinate facilities, and secondly, it will make it possible for the grants we are discussing to become available for the private sector. Outside the passenger transport authorities there will be private operators running stage carriage services. It is desirable that if a subsidy is being given for the people who are not able to afford to pay the economic rate it should be irrelevant whether they are travelling on a privately owned bus or a publicly owned bus, on a stage carriage or an express carriage. All these things should come into a common pattern.
Amendment No. 446 might conceivably arouse more passion in the House. I will


not try to avoid facing up to the issues. I appreciate that this is the dilemma of the Welfare State today. What does one do about the scarce resources available to the community in trying to ensure that they go to the people who need them most. Hon. Members opposite have had to face up to this and introduce quite discriminatory schemes of the sort I am making possible by this legislation. All parties have got to the stage where we accept discrimination as the only way this nation can afford to look after the people who really need help. This will increase as time goes on. There is the problem of real poverty which the Welfare State has not eliminated and will not eliminate, and we must search for ways in which to deal with the situation.
If a local authority of responsible people wants to introduce a scheme which concentrates the benefits which that local community has available on those people who need them most that is an exercise which this House should not prevent. It would have the advantage of limiting the resources available where they would do most good, and there would be larger benefits available for those with the greatest need.
Amendments Nos. 447 and 448 are not of great consequence to the main debate but are included in this group. They mean that if there are to be appeals about the costing of travel concessions, instead of finding their way to the Ministry of Transport they should go to the local traffic commissioners. There is enough centralisation, and the more one can begin to turn back the process and give local controls of the sort involved in these Amendments the better.
I hope that it will be possible for the Government to think about the points I have made. No doubt other hon. Members will wish to comment on these matters. At present the position is unsatisfactory and the Government could, by accepting this group of Amendments and—having thought the matter over and, if necessary, by taking steps in another place—by tabling further Amendments, improve the situation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Since this will probably be the last time that we shall hear the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) on this subject for at any rate some months, and since the

hour is late, perhaps we can forgive him for on this occasion not being up to his usual standard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We are all getting rather tired. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The hon. Gentleman demonstrated that he is facile first, ingenious second, adventitious third and confused fourth. Otherwise he made a good job of his speech. I will justify those points one by one.
First, the hon. Gentleman called Amendment No. 444 a probing one. This discussion is supposed to be non-political, although it is a highly political subject, as it has become clear. This Amendment is based on a misunderstanding of subsection (1), which has the essential purpose of enabling local authorities to arrange for travel concessions on services provided by P.T.E.s, the cost being reimbursed by the local authorities; and in such cases the P.T.E.s do not require the approval of the P.T.A.s for giving concessions.
I could give many examples to show how the present concessions vary. For example, in the Greater Manchester P.T. area, seven municipal undertakings give half-fare concessions for old age pensioners, or all over 65, male, and over 60, female. One gives half-fare concessions to those over 65 and one gives half-fares for those over 70. Two give no concessions at all. In the Merseyside area, one gives free travel to those over 70, one gives free travel to all over 70 and pensioners over 68, one gives 175 journeys free a year to those over 70 and one gives 3d. flat fares to all over 65, male, and over 60, female. There are similarly differing arrangements between undertakings in other areas.
To enable local authorities to go through the interim period before the P.T.A.s are properly formed, constituted and running, subsection (1) is an interim measure and allows local authorities to arrange for travel concessions on services provided by the P.T.E.s, as I explained. Since the cost will be reimbursed by the local authorities, the electors will, therefore, have direct access to those who will make the policy in this interim period.
Any attempt to try to change this arrangement along the lines of Amendment No. 444 would, to take a charitable view, make the best the enemy of the good. If we were not able to make these


arrangements in the interim period, all concessionary fares would have to cease forthwith. That would not be desirable and I can hardly believe that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention. Having probed the Government by that Amendment, and having received this explanation, I trust that he will not wish to proceed with that proposal.
I come to the hon. Gentleman's ingenious argument on Amendment No. 445. Presumably this proposal was intended to ensure that if local authorities arrange travel concessions for the old, blind and disabled on bus services operated by non-municipal undertakings —not P.T.E. services—they would do so on all the services concerned without discrimination.
1.15 a.m.
I readily admit that the hon. Gentleman's argument about the anxiety to get uniform concessions is fair, but it is a little disingenuous not to see that there is concern in some undertakings that, if concessions are given on the services of one operator but not another, there may be an abstraction of traffic from the latter's services. That would be a legitimate argument, but it is not one that he has been willing to substantiate. I suggest that that argument has to be taken into account as well as the fair one that he put forward.
I am trying to emphasise that these powers given to the local authorities are essentially permissive. With the cost of them falling entirely on the rates, the local authorities must be allowed these permissive rights. We would be reluctant to impose provisions in a statute which would detract from the permissive nature of the powers.
Turning, then, to Amendment No. 446, I will not go into the arguments about universality or selectivity. I will content myself with saying that the Amendment is unnecessary. Subsections (1) and (3) already allow a local authority to give concessions to
 any persons such as are mentioned in subsection (5)".
and subsection (5) says that the persons referred to in subsections (1) and (3)

are persons mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c>) of the subsection
 or any description of such persons ".
Here again, we do not have to make a distinction. The Amendment is adventitious.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 447 and 448, which the hon. Gentleman described as not very important, he fails to make the distinction here. There is provision for the costs of travel concessions to be determined by the Chairman of the Traffic Commissioners in the case of road passenger services or by the Minister in the case of other services. I hope that the two are seen to be distinct functions. The decision in either case is final, so a Chairman and the Minister are adjudicating in separate spheres. There is no question of an appeal to the Minister from a Chairman's decision, and, of course, it would be nonsense to suggest that there could be an appeal from the Minister to the chairman.
The Amendments would delete all reference to the Minister, so, while the road passenger services appeal system would remain unaffected, the other services' appeal system would be damaged. The hon. Gentleman has confused the point. It is not a case of Whitehall knowing best. It is simply that there are two separate systems of appeal, one to the chairman and one to the Minister. There must be a system of appeal, and, for that reason as well, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue his Amendments.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I said at the beginning that I felt that the Amendments were probing. However, my main point still stands. It would have been likely to have achieved greater uniformity and a greater degree of concession for more people if my Amendments had been voted upon and put into the legislation. There is an argument for bringing about a universal scheme in each conurbation, and there should be no distinction made between municipal and private sector operations.
However, I do not wish to ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 129

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 551, in page 175, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.
This Amendment leaves put the operative subsection of Clause 129. The Clause seeks to classify the new authorities and executives as a particular form of statutory undertaker. The Freight Corporation, the Bus Company, the Scottish Group and the passenger transport executives will all become statutory undertakers under Section 86 of the Transport Act, 1962. The benefits given to statutory undertakers are very substantial in town and country planning law. These bodies will have to apply for planning permission when they wish to develop operational land. When planning permission is refused, as the law stands they will receive 100 per cent, compensation out of the ratepayer's pocket.
If the Town and Country Planning Bill now passing through the House receives the Royal Assent and certain regulations are made under the new Act, that 100 per cent, will be reduced to 50 per cent, compensation in certain cases and in other cases there will be no compensation for refusal of planning permission. At the moment the House has only the statement from the Minister of State, Housing and Local Government of the intentions in regard to those regulations. What developments by statutory undertakers may, if refused planning permission, produce 50 per cent, compensation we do not know, except that we have been told that they will be the sort of developments where it is necessary that they should be in certain places and done in a certain manner. If there is a discretion to the statutory undertaker to carry out his undertaking where he chooses, if he chooses to do it somewhere that the planning authority does not like and the planning authority refuses planning permission, he will not get compensation either at 100 per cent, or 50 per cent.
I quote from the Minister of State's statement during the Report stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill when he referred specifically to this Bill. He said:
Next, an example from the transport world. Under the Transport Bill, now before the

House, the proposed new passenger transport executives will be statutory undertakers. They will have a wide variety of powers …
We know that they have a wide variety of powers—32 under Clause 10—
 and they will certainly have operational land. I should expect a general extension to a city bus station to be specified development …
—and therefore to carry 50 per cent, compensation—
because the station is necessary to enable the executive to do its primary job, and the places where the extension could be sited would be considerably limited.
Equally, I think that a new waiting room building at the station would be specified development. But a petrol filling station at a car park serving private car owners would not be. It would not be part of the primary function to provide transport services, and. if there were objection to it by the local planning authority, I do not think that the executive could claim that the primary operations for which it was set up would be seriously or unreasonably impeded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 79.]
We have the statement of the intention of the Government introducing the Regulations, but until the regulations are made a statutory undertaker who is refused development of his operational plan can claim 100 per cent, compensation out of the taxpayers pocket. When the regulations are made in a great number of cases the statutory undertaker will still be able to claim 50 per cent, out of the ratepayers pocket. By this Bill we are to increase one hundred-fold, two hundred-fold, five hundred-fold, the number of statutory undertakers who will be able to take money out of the ratepayers pocket. We are not only creating these four bodies, the Freight Corporation, the Bus Company, the Scottish Group and the executives but all their subsidiaries. They may be building bookstalls or petrol filling stations or running car delivery firms. These are all to be statutory undertakers, and if an essential statutory undertaker were refused opportunity to develop at a certain pace by the local planning authority he would be entitled to be paid compensation. We really are increasing the burden on the ratepayers to a very great extent by this Bill. The Government ought to think about it again.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There can be no Judy show without Punch and no Hamlet without the Prince, and I am very glad the hon. Member for Crosby


(Mr. Graham Page) has been able to take part in our proceedings on this Bill at some stage.

Mr. Graham Page: At the very last moment.

Dr. Mabon: Unfortunately, he has not read this Clause with his usual assiduity. He is seeking innocently to achieve the very thing he fears, because he would in effect, if the Amendment were carried, be disapplying Section 86 of the Transport Act, 1962, and under the Bill the authorities he mentioned, and the P.T.A.s would get the wide privileges under the town and country planning legislation the existing boards enjoy. I can understand to some extent the hon. Gentleman's confusion. I have been trying to follow the Town and Country Planning Bill for England and Wales because of what we intend to do in Scotland.
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the Minister. The Minister will be able to define very closely by regulation what types of undertakings will attract rights to compensation. It will in effect mean a further restriction going beyond what is imposed by Section 86 of the 1962 Act. The special provisions of Section 86 are twofold. The special privileges apply only to development for purposes which are intrinsic in carrying out a statutory undertaker's business. I think the hon. Gentleman is worrying over much because he thinks the special privileges will somehow apply to the development for other purposes. I can assure him that is not so. Special privileges do not apply to purposes such as manufacturing activities under Clause 45, the development of shops and offices for use by other people, or the notorious oil refinery at Nuneaton, or paint works or the rather esoteric suggestions we have had from time to time. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman about this position. Application of the Section which he is seeking to delete would achieve the very thing he is aiming at.

Mr. Graham Page: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong on this. At it is worded, a subsidiary, if it has a statutory duty, will get the benefit of 50 per cent, compensation. If the hon. Gentleman

does not intend it to have it, let him alter the Section, which needs alteration and very careful alteration.

Dr. Mabon: The last time the hon. Gentleman said that to me was on the Police (Scotland) Bill of 1966 and he was quite wrong and I had to write to him in those terms pointing it out to him. On this occasion again—I am sorry to be so certain about it—he is wrong. I was right on the last occasion and he was wrong. It is quite true that he is not always wrong and he is sometimes right. On this occasion he is wrong. What I am trying to distinguish for him is the distinction between special privileges resulting from the actual function of an undertaker in the statutory sense and peripheral functions which are not within the same compass.

Proceedings on consideration of the Bill having continued for three and a half hours after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the remaining part of the Bill.

Clause 136

MINOR AMENDMENTS OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1960

Amendment made: No. 455, in page 180, line 1, at beginning insert:
(1) The power of prescribing conferred by subsection (3) of section 117 of the Act of 1960 (which provides that for the purposes of that Act an express carriage is a public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares none of which is less than one shilling or such greater sum as may be prescribed) may be exercised so as to provide for different minimum fares for the purposes of that subsection in different circumstances.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 137

APPROVAL MARKS

Amendment made: No. 456, in page 180, line 41, at end insert:
(2) In the said section 47, the expression 'motor vehicle part' shall include any equipment for the protection of drivers or passengers in or on a motor vehicle notwithstanding that it does not form part of, or of the equipment of, that vehicle.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 141

AMENDMENTS AS TO DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF COMMONS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 457, page 181, line 36, at end insert:
The Channel Tunnel Planning Council.— [Mr. Marsh.]

Clause 145

INTERPRETATION—GENERAL

Amendments made: No. 459, page 184, line 30, at end insert:
' highway authority ' in relation to any highway means—

(a)for the purposes of the application of this Act to England or Wales, the highway authority for that highway under Part I of the Highways Act 1959;
(b)for the purposes of the application of this Act to Scotland—


(i) where the highway is a trunk road, the Secretary of State; and
(ii) in any other case, the county council or the town council of a burgh charged with the maintenance and management of any of the highways therein.—[Mr. Marsh.]

No. 460, in page 185, line 37, leave out from 'and' to end of line 38 and insert:
' except in section 30 of this Act includes a permit granted under the said section 30'.— [Mr. Doig.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

BODIES WHOSE SECURITIES ARE TRANSFERRED TO FREIGHT CORPORATION

Amendment made: No. 467, in page 194, leave out line 10.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES AND EXECUTIVES

Amendment made: No. 472, in page 203, line 28, at end insert:
8. The delegation of functions by the Authority or the Executive to a committee or to their chairman.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

PROVISIONS AS TO EXISTING OPERATORS AND SERVICES ON MAKING OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 19(1).

Amendments made: No. 473, in page 207, line 28, at end insert: ' or any part thereof'.

No. 474, in page 208, line 3, after 'up' insert ' the whole or part of'.

No. 475, in page 208, line 19, leave out from ' compensation ' to 'of' in line 21 and insert:
' in pursuance of a requirement under sub-paragraph (a), or the price of any purchase in pursuance of a requirement under sub-paragraph (b), of paragraph 10(2)'.

No. 476, in page 208, line 24, leave out ' paragraph 10(2) of this Schedule' and insert: ' the said paragraph 10(2)'. —[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 7

BODIES WHOSE SECURITIES ARE TRANSFERRED TO BUS COMPANY

Amendments made: No. 477, in page 209, line 38, at end insert: Greenslades Tours Limited.

No. 478, in page 209, line 41, at end insert: London Coastal Coaches Limited.

No. 479, in page 209, line 43, at end insert: The Mexborough and Swinton Traction Company Limited.

No. 480, in page 209, line 44, at end insert: Neath and Cardiff Luxury Coaches Limited.

No. 481, in page 209, line 50, at end insert: The Potteries Motor Traction Company Limited.

No. 482, in page 209, line 51, at end insert: The Rhondda Transport Company Limited.

No. 483, in page 210, line 3, at end insert: The South Wales Transport Company Limited.

No. 484, in page 210, line 8, at end insert: Thomas Brothers (Port Talbot) Limited.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

TRANSPORT MANAGERS' LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 487, in page 214, line 9, at end insert:
(2A) A licensing authority who has made an order under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, cancel that order.

No. 488, in page 214, line 11, leave out from ' under' to ' without' in line 12 and insert
'sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph in respect of any licence or the holder of any licence'.

No. 489, in page 214, line 15, leave out ' the foregoing provisions' and insert 'sub-paragraph (1) or (2)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 10

AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART V

Amendment made: No. 491, in page 217, line 12, at end insert:


Section 255 (method of calculating weight of vehicles).
The reference to the Act of 1960 shall include a reference to Part V of this Act



—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART VI

Amendment made: No. 492, in page 220, line 31, at end insert:


Section 255 (method of calculating weight of vehicles).
The reference to the Act of 1960 shall include a reference to Part V of this Act



—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 13

ORDERS RELATING TO INLAND WATERWAYS

Amendments made: No. 504, in page 223, line 38, leave out ' pleasure' and insert ' cruising.'

No. 505, in page 224, line 9, leave out ' pleasure ' and insert ' cruising '.

No. 506, in page 224, line 12, at end insert:
4. In the case of a proposed order under section 105 of this Act in respect of a canal or part of a canal (within the meaning of that section) which appears to the Minister to be used to a significant extent for the purpose of navigation, the Minister shall consult with any organisation appearing to him to represent persons using it as aforesaid.

No. 507, in page 224, line 37, leave out 'pleasure ' and insert ' cruising '.— [Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 16

SUPPLEMENTARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 508, in page 247, line 2, at end insert:
(4) In section 23 of the British Railways Act 1964 (which provides for the aforesaid section 54 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 to continue in force in its application to the Railways Board) and in any enactment passed after this Act which provides for the said section 54 so to continue in force for a further period, the reference to the Railways Board shall be construed as a reference to the Railways Board, the Freight Corporation and any wholly-owned subsidiary of that Board or Corporation.

No. 509, in page 248, line 43, at end add:
12. In the Industrial Expansion Act 1968, in Schedule 1 (which specifies bodies not eligible for financial support under industrial investment schemes made under that Act) at the end there shall be added the following entries:—
The National Freight Corporation, The National Bus Company, The Scottish Transport Group."—[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 18

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 511, in page 253, line 54, at end insert:


1966 c 46
The Bus Fuel Grants Act 1966
As from 1st January 1969, the whole Act.




—[Mr. Marsh.]

Motion made, and Question;

That the proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended.—[Mr. Marsh.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12th December] (Sittings of the House):—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 214.

Division No. 204.]
AYES
[1.32 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Aldritt, Walter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Anderson, Donald
Foley, Maurice
Manuel, Archie


Archer, Peter
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Marks, Kenneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Fool, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Forrester, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fowler, Gerry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, J. J.


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian


Bence, Cyril
Gardner, Tony
Millan, Bruce


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Miller. Dr. M. S.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bidgeton)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Binns, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bishop, E. S.
Gregory, Arnold
Morgan, Elystan(Cardiganshire)


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stan


Brooks, Edwin
Haseldine, Norman
Norwood, Christopher


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hattersley, Roy
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Hugh D.(G'gow, Provan) 
Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Brown, R.W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury) 
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellinsborough)
Owen, Dr. David(Plymouth, S' m)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howie, W.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cant, R. B.
Hoy, James
Paget, R. T.


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Park, Trevour


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parker, John(Dagenham)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parkyn, Brain (Bedford)


Coleman, Donald
Hunter Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Concannon, J. D.
Hynd, John
Pearson, Arthur (Porrtypridd)


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart Rt. Hn. Fred


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Colin(B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn R. E.


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P cras, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
price, William (Rugby)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Rankin, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Davies, Ifor(Gower)
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dell, Edmund
Ledger, Ron
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dempsey, James
Lee, John(Reading)
Roebuck, Roy


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dickens, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw Arnold (llford, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
MacColl, James
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Snow, Julla[...]


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, John


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ensor, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swingler, Stephen




Taverne, Dick
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, Rt. Hn George
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thomson, Rt, Hn. George
Wellbeloved, James
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, w.)
Yates, Victor


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Clifford (Abertllery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Nott, John


Astor, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhart, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W.H. K.(Banff)
Grant, Anthony

Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pardoe, John


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grieve, Percy
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Bessell, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A G. F.
Pounder, Rafton


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brain (Maldon)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom(Leicester, S. W.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pym Francis


Body, Richard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hawkins, Paul
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brewis, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Rossi, Hugh(Hornsey)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
St. John-stevas, Norman


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Buohanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Sharpies, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby) 


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, Cordon
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Speed, Keith


ClarlK, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Stodart, Anthony


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorest, S.)
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Crowder, F. P.
Lambton, viscount
Teeling, Sir William


Cunningham, Sir Knox,
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane, David
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn R. H.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Keeneth (Rutland)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lloyd, lan (p'tsm'th, Langstone)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wall, Patrick


Douehty Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, G.B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Weatherill, Bernard


du, cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Eden, Sir Jhn
Maginnis, John E.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eyre Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone) 
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Gibson-Watt, David
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Neave, Alrey
Mr. Jasper More and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Orders of the Day — STEEL INDUSTRY (CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORKERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

1.42 a.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I am very pleased to have this opportunity of drawing attention to a matter which affects the basic principles of the right of freedom of association by focussing attention on the injustices of denying the right to more than 3,500 clerical and administrative workers in the steel industry to be represented by the union of their own choice.
Prior to the nationalisation of this industry, the employers did everything in their power to frustrate the efforts of the trades unions to organise the "white collar" workers in the industry. Staff associations were formed which, in effect, were puppet company unions, and membership of the notorious Staffs Mutual Benefit, whose rules forbid union membership, was encouraged. Yet, in spite of all the obstacles—formidable obstacles—union membership increased. Some staffs joined the Manual Workers' Union, which had reciprocating rights with the steel companies, and over the years, the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union secured a substantial membership, especially in Scotland, and secured local agreements with a number of private companies.
Then came nationalisation. The nationalisation of steel was welcomed by the union who foresaw little difficulty in establishing the right to negotiate on behalf of its members, a right which they had already obtained in other nationalised industries such as coal, electricity, gas and civil aviation. It would be an understatement to say the union was shocked when the British Steel Corporation rejected the claim for union recognition. The Corporation seeks to justify this decision by stating that it does not believe that the recognition of a multiplicity of unions would be in the best interests of a nationalised industry or in the best interests of its employees.
Yet in July, 1967, the Corporation, being faced with a position in which no union had recognition for staff workers

prior to nationalisation, extended recognition to a group of manual workers' unions, 14 in all. This clearly meant that of some 14 unions some had very few clerical membership in their union; and in fact the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union has the second highest total out of those 14 unions in membership in the steel industry.
The Corporation seeks to plead support of their decision by the T.U.C. In fact, the T.U.C. Organisation Committee approved one of those shabby compromises about which Mr. George Woodcock, its secretary, speaks: because the Corporation has accepted only part of the recommendation of the T.U.C, the part that suited its convenience, so that it can shuffle responsibility for its decision not to recognise the union or negotiate with the union on behalf of its members on to the T.U.C.
Arising from this, the union has now advised the British Steel Corporation that it intends to give 14 days' notice—I believe expiring in a few days' time—for strike action. If a strike takes place it will cause very great damage to an industry we all want to see prosper. But responsibility for the dispute, and for the dislocation it will cause, must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the British Steel Corporation.
In a way, this is history repeating itself, because in 1947 a similar situation arose in the coal mining industry when the National Coal Board refused to recognise the right of this union to negotiate for clerical workers. This led to a general stoppage and ultimately, as a result, to recognition of the union. I may say the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union is not the only one involved. A.S.T.M.S., a technical staff union, is also involved; and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) may wish to say a word on that.
I sum up by saying that this is a fundamental issue. The Government have a duty in a democratic society to protect the freedom of the individual from coercion by his employers. This is Human Rights Year. The Government can make their contribution to human rights by telling the British Steel Corporation that they will not tolerate a situation in which the elementary rights


of individuals to be represented by a union freely chosen by themselves is denied.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will try to drive some sense into the heads of the members of the British Steel Corporation and will try to convince them of the justice of this case. We want an up-to-date industry. This was the purpose of nationalisation; but it must also have an up to date conception of human problems and human rights; and the quicker my hon. Friends bring these facts to the attention of the Steel Board, the quicker will the workers bring the facts of the recognition of this union to the notice of the Steel Board; and the sooner we shall reach harmony between the staff employed by the industry and their employers.
This is a matter of principle, a matter of the right minorities to be represented by a union of their own choice. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will make representations to the Corporation indicating that their attitude will not be tolerated in a civilised society.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on this fact? The trouble is not that the Steel Corporation has not carried out its requirement to consult with those organisations appearing to them to be appropriate in the industry, but that there are other trade unions which hitherto have not organised membership within the steel industry and which, since the industry's arrangements for the organisation of staff workers is governed by an Act of Parliament, are trying to muscle in on it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot make a speech under the guise of an intervention.

Mr. Fletcher: There is substance in what my hon. Friend says. Prior to the nationalisation of the industry the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union had a substantial membership. They have 3,500 members in this industry and it seems senseless for the National Steel Board to resist the claim of this union for members in the industry.

1.53 a.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has put his case with charac-

teristic coolness and modesty. I find it difficult to be equally cool because I am indignant about this situation.
Yesterday I put a supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power to ask whether he was aware that the British Steel Corporation is continuing the practice of the former owners of the industry in resisting any white collar unions in the industry, and continuing the practice of paying money to an organisation which denies benefit to any employee if he is a member of a trade union. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said if that was the case the Corporation ought not to be behaving in that way.
That answer suggests that my right hon. Friend does not know whether it is happening or not, and further that he does not think he ought to do anything about it. In fact he has had a lively correspondence with me over the last few weeks, and unless he does not read the letters he signs he knows all about this situation.
Some of the people running this industry were, before nationalisation, bitter opponents of staff trade unions. They were willing, though reluctant, to accept trade unionism amongst manual and clerical workers. If staff were organised they would prefer them to be organised in unions catering for manual workers rather than staff workers.
One of the leading figures in the industry, even when a member of the committee preparing for nationalisation, put up notices in his works advising members of staff not to join trade unions. This is being continued, notwithstanding my hon. Friend's comments in his intervention. In fact, the unions which have the largest membership in the technical and supervisory grades are not among those the Corporation recognises. It recognises some which have no membership in these grades, or certainly not more than literally a handful, counting the number of fingers on one hand.
That, however, is not the worst of the story. In a recent instruction from its headquarters to local managements, the Corporation has said that those managements should encourage staff employees to join manual unions. Had it said that they should encourage those employees who were not trade union members to join manual unions, nobody would have


taken the slightest exception, but it has said that employees who are members of staff unions should be encouraged to leave those unions and to join craft and manual unions.
Anybody with a ha'p'orth of knowledge of the industrial scene—and certainly that includes my hon. Friend the Undersecretary, who has great knowledge of it —will know that that instruction is two things. First, it is a violation of the Bridlington agreement and, secondly, it is an open invitation to inter-union warfare, which nobody would want and which would do the Corporation very grave damage. I do not want to say anything about the Clause which my hon. Friend read about recognition, because that is about to be tested in the courts. It is very much open to question whether the Corporation has acted bona fide in its interpretation and, therefore, I must not say anything about it, and I will not do so. Here, however, is an open invitation to internecine warfare between different groups of workers which can only damage the Corporation in the objectives which it seeks.
Even allowing for the proper autonomy of the Corporation to run its affairs, this is a matter which cannot be of indifference to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who is the sponsoring Minister, or to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible for seeing that labour relations in the industry do not deteriorate. I therefore ask him to look closely into this matter. It is very much better that he and his Department should take a close look at this matter before there is grave industrial dislocation than be compelled to look at it after that dislocation takes place.

1.57 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for raising this matter. This issue, which is of great importance for employees in the nationalised steel industry and also for relations and efficiency in the industry, is an extremely difficult one. My hon. Friend's presentation of the case, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), has been at a high and responsible level.
I should like at the outset to make clear my right hon. Friend's position in this matter. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend is currently having discussions on this issue with the organisations concerned. In the circumstances, I must, therefore, be particularly circumspect in what I have to say tonight. What I have to say, therefore, is not intended to imply any judgment on the actions or attitudes of the parties. My purpose is merely to try to set out, for the benefit of the House, the problem and some of the main factors which should be borne in mind.
I am fully aware of the strong feelings of some of my hon. Friends that certain decisions have been taken by the British Steel Corporation on trade union recognition, particularly in respect of clerical and supervisory grades. The very difficult problems with which the Corporation has found itself faced in this field should not, however, be overlooked.
The Iron and Steel Act, 1967, places on the Corporation a duty to
seek consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion of agreements with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment ".
The negotiating arrangements which had previously existed in the steel industry were diverse and complex and to attempt to transplant them into the new nationalised structure would not have been possible or even appropriate. The Corporation was faced, particularly in respect of supervisory and technical grades of staff, with claims from various unions for national negotiating rights. The Corporation decided therefore to consult the T.U.C. on union organisation in the nationalised steel industry, and the House will, I am sure, accept that, by so doing, the Corporation has demonstrated its concern to take account of the views of the trade union movement. As an interim arrangement, the Corporation agreed to grant national recognition up to foreman level to six organisations which draw the majority of their membership in the industry from process workers, craftsmen and general workers, but which, in some cases, also include appreciable numbers of white collar employees. The Corporation also agreed to an assessment of the unions' claims to recognition being carried out by the T.U.C.
Following discussion with the T.U.C. and the unions concerned the Corporation has followed the advice of the T.U.C. on foremen, clerical, technical and supervisory grades to recognise nationally only the six general organisations already recognised for manual workers. Local recognition of two white collar unions, the Association of Technical, Supervisory and Managerial Staffs, and the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, each of which my two hon. Friends who have spoken represent, is being maintained where it has been granted hitherto.
On middle management the Corporation has not felt able to follow the T.U.C.'s advice that national recognition should be granted, but restricted to the six national organisations already recognised in respect of clerical, supervisory and manual grades. The Corporation's decision has been based on the view that a single Corporation-wide organisation would be the most effective in representing the interests of managerial staffs, and the Corporation considers that no organisation yet has the substantial and widespread support from middle management grades within the Corporation which it believes to be essential for recognition.
As my hon. Friends have made clear, it is primarily the Corporation's decision to restrict national recognition in respect of clerical and supervisory grades to the six organisations already recognised in respect of manual workers, and the rejection of the claims of the A.S.T.M.S. and the C.A.W.U. to national recognition, which has given rise to concern. This is understandable in view of the tradition of organisation which is basic to these two unions, namely, that the interests of these groups of employees can be most satisfactorily protected by separate organisations catering specifically for this class of employee.
The House will not expect me to express a view on this issue which is currently a matter of dispute between the two organisations and the Corporation. I would only ask the House to bear in mind also the Corporation's position, having received from the T.U.C. a clear recommendation in favour of restricting national recognition to the six organisa-

tions previously recognised in respect of manual workers.
Certain of my hon. Friends have taken exception to a particular feature of the Corporation's decision on recognition in respect of clerical, supervisory and technical grades, namely, that branches of the six are to be given local recognition even at plants where the A.S.T.M.S. and the C.A.W.U. are now recognised and that the six should be given every reasonable facility for recruitment and employees encouraged to join an appropriate union of the six. This has been construed in some quarters as an invitation to poaching of one union's members by another, and as tantamount to denying employees the right to join the union of their choice.
I think the House is aware that my right hon. Friend is currently engaged on discussions of this question of trade union recognition in the nationalised steel industry with the organisations concerned, and the House will understand that, in the circumstances, I cannot therefore comment on this particular issue. I think that it would nevertheless be right for me to inform the House that my right hon. Friend has been assured by the Corporation that while, in its view, rationalisation of trade union and negotiating structures would bring considerable benefits to the industry, it recognises that progress must necessarily be a gradual development and can be achieved only with the co-operation of all those concerned.
The Corporation has also assured my right hon. Friend that it has not thought of encouraging poaching of one union's members by another, which would involve the poaching union in a breach of the obligation to observe the Bridlington principles laid down by the T.U.C. I understand that the Corporation will be issuing guidance to local managements which will remove any doubt which exists on the Corporation's attitude on this matter. The Corporation has also assured my right hon. Friend that it regards the choice of union as a matter entirely for the individual employee.
I should like to assure the House that my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and the Minister of Power are both keeping a


close watch on the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power made clear in reply to a Question yesterday, while he is generally responsible for the nationalised steel industry, he has no power to give the Corporation specific directions on this issue. So far as my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is concerned, the House will be aware that the A.S.T.M.S. and the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union have both informed her that they are in dispute with the Corporation on this matter. She met representatives of the two unions on Monday, 27th May. She has also seen today representatives of the Corporation. In view of the close interest which the T.U.C. has taken in this problem, she hopes to have an early discussion with T.U.C. representatives, including representatives of the other unions concerned.
I will refer to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. We raised with the British Steel Corporation the question of the Foremen's and Staff Mutual Benefit Society. It gave us an assurance that it has ceased to recruit members to that organisation and is seeking ways and means to wind up its association with it while at the same time having due regard to any accrued pensions. Here is a clear cut severance. I hope that will give my hon. Friend some assurance.
One general point I make in conclusion. Our tradition in industrial relations has been essentially a pragmatic and practical one. This undoubtedly has been one of the strengths of our system. Consistent with this there has been a reluctance to try to set out general principles and guidelines for recognition problems which have been regarded as an area in which the only satisfactory solution was for the parties themselves to reach their own decision. One result of this has been that recognition issues have perhaps too often turned in the last resort on the ability of a union to mount a demonstration of industrial strength which would convince the employer that he had no practical alternative but to grant recognition.
As the House will know, a great deal of evidence on recognition problems has been presented to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associa-

tions, and the tenor of some of it has been that there would be advantages in an alternative approach to recognition problems which placed less of a premium on industrial militancy. The Royal Commisison's Report will shortly be published. I am certain that we can expect it to give valuable guidance on this question which will help us to assess, and I would hope, to improve our present practice on these difficult problems.
In the light of what I have said about the efforts of my right hon. Friend, I hope that my hon. Friends will urge restraint on their members pending the outcome of the discussions.

2.8 a.m.

Mr. Donald Coleman: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for raising this matter tonight. Rightly and properly he has expressed the concern of his members. However, I feel it necessary on this occasion to take note of the other side of the coin and also to take into account the position of other trade unions in the steel industry, which have a far more substantial membership among the clerical, technical and administrative grades in the industry. We should also put on record the efforts of these organisations such as mine, the British Iron and Steel and Kindred Trades Association, which has a registered membership in the industry of about 12,000, and I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that we do organise these technical staffs. As a metallurgist I speak in this House for my trade union. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and my other hon. Friends will be delighted to welcome the candidate now standing in the Sheffield, Brightside by-election into this House as one of our colleagues. He, too, is in the steel industry and is in the grade of worker we are talking about. This is an indication of the kind of membership we have in the Iron and Steel Trades Federation.

Mr. George Lawson: Would my hon. Friend agree that every effort should be made by all the trade unions concerned to bring about a happy solution of this problem which cannot but do great harm to the steel industry if in a dispute of this sort they cannot find a way of avoiding a strike which I


understand is today starting in my part of the country?

Mr. Coleman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The requirement of the Steel Corporation was to consider the organisations which would be appropriate in the steel industry to organise these workers but the Corporation did not consult with one organisation only but with the Trades Union Congress. The consultations which have gone on in the Congress have resulted in the recommendation made by the T.U.C. The organisation we have in the industry has been built up over many years at a time when we did not have, as we have now, an employer who is compelled by Act of Parilament to grant trade union recognition. It was built up at a time when we were having to fight employers in their implacable resistance to staff organisation. We would be very wrong

to do anything which would encourage strife within the industry among this grade of workers, whom it has been very difficult to bring into trade union organisation.
We ought to remember the work of the Iron and Steel Trades Federation, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Municipal and General Workers Union, who went out and sought membership at times when it was extremely difficult to get these people in. I say to those in these grades in this industry, be wise, you now have your opportunity, organise.

The debate having been concluded, the motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at twelve minutes past Two o'clock till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Order.